Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Housing Finance

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to issue a circular to housing authorities on the availability of central Government finance in 1977.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): The Council for the Principality has recommended local authorities to accept my proposal that each housing authority should for 1977–78 receive a block allocation to meet all capital housing requirements—new building, purchase of land, improvements to council houses and acquisition of existing properties. When the local authorities' views are fully known, I shall consider whether a further circular is necessary.

Mr. Roberts: I welcome the Minister's return to good health. May I ask him, however, to explain why housing is due to take the most savage cut of all when the spending on housing per capita in Wales is below the average for the United Kingdom and when we have such a stock of old housing to renew or replace?

Mr. Alec Jones: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks to me. However, there has been no cut in Welsh new house-building provision for 1977–78. On the contrary, the White Paper provision was increased by some £20 million in July of this year.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I, too, welcome the Minister back to the Dispatch Box. I also welcome the system of block alloca-

tions which is now being introduced. On the other hand, I should like to ask the Minister on what formula these allocations to each of the districts in Wales will be based.

Mr. Alec Jones: I thank the hon. Gentleman in similar tones to those I expressed to the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts). I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes our new proposals about the block allocations, which are designed to give greater flexibility to local housing authorities so that they can decide their own needs and how best to meet them. The criteria that we are using are those of population, the number of council houses, the past building record and the percentage of unfit houses. I know that some hon. Members, on all sides of the House, might have thought that we could have included waiting lists. Unfortunately, there is no common basis of compiling waiting lists and a comparison between the various districts would not, therefore, be possible.

Area Health Authorities (Membership)

Mr. Tom Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many area health authorities in Wales when first constituted had no members of the nursing profession in their composition; and what is the present position.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Barry Jones): The answer to the first part of the Question is "None". At present, the Clwyd Area Health Authority does not include someone with current nursing experience.

Mr. Ellis: What was the argument which persuaded my hon. Friend in the first instance not to have representatives of the nursing profession on the Clwyd Area Health Authority?

Mr. Barry Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. All nominations for membership of the authority from the various organisations that were invited to nominate were considered very carefully, but at the end of the day, and taking into account all the circumstances, it seemed that the balance of membership which now obtains in Clwyd was the most appropriate. It includes someone with former nursing experience.

Sir A. Meyer: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that there is serious discontent in the ranks of the nursing profession about the absence of any representation on this authority?

Mr. Barry Jones: The fact that the lady to whom the hon. Gentleman may well be referring was not included was no reflection whatsoever on her contribution. There is no statutory obligation to have a nursing member.

Education Standards

Mr. Michael Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the standards of literacy and numeracy in Welsh secondary schools.

Mr. Barry Jones: Standards of literacy and numeracy will have to rise if they are to keep pace with the demands of society.

Mr. Roberts: That is hardly an answer to the Question. Will the Minister give an assurance that, before he embarks on the great debate about literacy and numeracy and the sensitive subjects of the curriculum and teaching methods, he will, unlike the Prime Minister, consult the teaching profession?

Mr. Barry Jones: I should like to emphasise that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wants a national debate in which everyone can join. Our priority is always our children and the quality of the education they are to receive. I should be very grateful to receive from the hon. Gentleman, who has more than a passing interest in education, his considered views, and in detail.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I was the only Back-Bench Member who was present to hear the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Oxford. I would say that what the Prime Minister was trying to point out—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask a question.

Mr. Hughes: That was merely the preamble, Mr. Speaker. Does my hon. Friend agree that what the Prime Minister was trying to point out was that certain questions are being asked about standards? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that others besides members of the

teaching profession are interested in these matters?

Mr. Barry Jones: I agree with the points made by my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made his points in such a way that many people in Britain were glad that the debate had been started by him. As regards mathematics, there is some cause for concern. Perhaps it is true that there is a justifiable feeling that standards of numeracy and literacy among school leavers are not up to present-day requirements. I think that that was what my right hon. Friend had in mind when he made his speech.

Mr. Hooson: Following the hon. Gentleman's inquiries, is it correct to say that the standards of numeracy and literacy in Wales are far higher than the general tenor of the Prime Minister's speech would suggest? Since that speech I have made inquiries in my own area, and that seems to be the position. Is it the hon. Gentleman's conclusion that the curriculum is infinitely more important than the method of teaching?

Mr. Barry Jones: The Prime Minister is the Prime Minister of Great Britain. However, I can say that there has been a levelling up of reading standards between England and Wales. In 1956 children in England were on average somewhat more competent readers of English than their counterparts in Wales, but in 1971 no significant differences were found between the two countries. I have recently commissioned the National Foundation for Educational Research to conduct a further survey of reading standards in both English and Welsh.

Mr. Grist: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable and growing concern of employers in Wales at the standards they find in numeracy and literacy among school leavers whom they employ? Does he agree that this is a very serious consideration in Wales, where we desperately need to attract new industry and employ more school leavers?

Mr. Barry Jones: Yes, the CBI is worried, but if the hon. Gentleman had read the Bullock Report of recent years he would have found that for 50 years the employers of Great Britain have been complaining that educational standards


are not good enough. I cannot agree that standards have fallen sharply in recent years. There is no valid statistical evidence to justify some of the wilder allegations now being made.

Mr. Fred Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware of any evidence that standards have fallen at all?

Mr. Barry Jones: The debate will find out precisely that.

New Industry

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of new industrial enterprises that have been established in the Blaenau Gwent, Cardiff and Shotton travel-to-work areas since March 1974, together with the number of jobs currently provided and the number anticipated when full production is reached.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): As the answer to the Question involves much detail I have arranged for it to be included in the Official Report. In brief, a total of 23 manufacturing firms are known by my Department to have opened in the three years since March 1974. These presently employ 1,150 people and when fully manned promise 2,300 jobs. In addition, firms which have agreed to set up in these areas but have not yet done so promise a further 1,300 jobs..

Sir A. Meyer: Are not those figures ludicrously and absurdly inadequate to provide for the growing number of redundancies and the swelling total of unemployment? Is it not a fact that the only chance of providing the badly needed jobs resulting from the closure, for example, of Courtaulds is for the Government to reverse their policies, reduce taxation and allow private enterprise to get on with providing the jobs?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his own views, but in some areas and industries it is private enterprise that has failed.

Mr. Roderick: I welcome the efforts that have been made by my right hon. and learned friend in attracting, in difficult circumstances, industries to the Blaenau Gwent area. Some of us at least would like to give a warm welcome to the WDA's announcement that it will take

over responsibility for developing the Rassau site. Had it not been for the efforts that the Government made to establish that agency, we should not have had this assistance.

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The action of the WDA this morning was welcome in that it has announced its intentions. The House will be glad to know that it intends to develop an area in Rassau that will provide 100 acres for industrial purposes. This is a significant development, which I hope will be welcomed.

Mr. Wigley: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied with the role of the task forces in these areas, especially in the Clwyd area? Does he believe that they have substantially contributed to finding a solution to these problems?

Mr. Morris: The task forces were set up by my predecessor some years ago and carried out surveys of needs at that time. The situation has changed since then. We have to ensure that our proposals match whatever needs arise in future.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us why he refuses to publish detailed figures on individual projects but publishes them subsequently in the Economic Bulletin? Whether published or not, do not the figures reveal, against a background of 27,000 redundancies this year, that the impetus for creating new jobs in the steel areas has come to a standstill? Does he agree with the blunt verdict on this matter by Mr. Kirkwood of the Welsh Industrial Advisory Board in the report on the Industry Act 1972?

Mr. Morris: I shall look into the question of publishing or publication, but I fear that the hon. Gentleman drafted his supplementary question before he heard the good news of the action of the Welsh Development Agency this morning. That is a significant development that will allow for more than 1,000 jobs in the first phase and eventually 3,000 to 4,000 jobs.

Following is the information:

SHOTTON

B. B. Shotblast Engineering Services (Plant) Ltd.
C.&amp; J. Engineering Ltd.
Christie Hydraulics Ltd.


Engineering Concessionaires Ltd.
Foesco Ltd.
Glendale Furniture Ltd.
Quindar Electronics Ltd.
Tillie &amp; Henderson Ltd.

Together, these firms presently employ 320 people, and when fully manned promise a total of 530 jobs.

CARDIFF

Alpine Soft Drinks Ltd.
Burroughs Machines Ltd.
Gardners Transformers Ltd.
Matsushita Electric (UK) Ltd.
Portland Chemicals Ltd.

Together, these firms presently employ 270 and when fully manned promise a total of 670 jobs.

BLAENAU GWENT

Celnik &amp; Power Ltd.
Conestra Ltd.
Engineering Products Ltd.
Eurodean Construction Ltd.
F. B. Industrial Rollers Ltd.
Grundy Auto Products Ltd.
Midland Oil Refineries Ltd.
Protective Clothing Ltd.
Alfred Teves Ltd.
Waterfit Ltd.

Together, these firms presently employ 560 people and when fully manned promise a total of 1,100 jobs.

Council Housing Starts

Mr. D. E. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is his target figure for new starts by local authority housing departments in Wales in 1977.

Mr. Alec Jones: We do not set targets for local authority housing departments.

Mr. Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is a totally inadequate answer in view of the housing needs in Wales? Does he have a target for total public and private sector building needs for Wales in the next year?

Mr. Alec Jones: I gave the hon. Gentleman an answer on 29th October from which he was entitled to draw, and could draw, certain implications regarding new housing in 1976–77 and up to 1978–79. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is extremely difficult to place validity on such figures. For example, they ignored the extra £30 million that my right hon. and learned Friend announced for expenditure on housing in Wales this year and the £20 million announced for next year. Further, the new block allocations, which the hon. Member has welcomed, mean that local authorities will have the discretion to

switch resources from new house building to the acquisition and repair of older houses if they think that that meets the needs of their areas.

Welsh Assembly

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in securing premises for the Welsh Assembly; and when he anticipates concluding arrangements for purchasing these premises.

Mr. John Morris: I announced, in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) on 26th October, that the Government intended to accommodate the Assembly in the Exchange, Cardiff. Completion of the lease is expected by the end of the year.

Mr. Wigley: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is general satisfaction in Wales that the new building is likely to be more practical than that previously considered for the Assembly? Will he comment on reports that the detailed agreement cannot be completed until about October of next year? If that were the case, would it permit the Assembly to go into operation in the spirng of 1978 as has previously been anticipated?

Mr. Morris: It is my intention that the work which is necessary for changing the Exchange building will be completed in good time for when the Assembly comes into operation. I anticipate no difficulty about the lease. It is expected that the contracts for the work will be entered into in the spring of next year, and that will be in good time. I am not aware of any of the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman canvasses.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the satisfaction to which the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) has referred would be more general if the Assembly were to be sited in a more convenient place in Wales—for example, in Mid-Wales, which would be far more convenient for representatives who will be coming from various parts of the Principality? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that it will be within the purview of the Assembly, if and when Parliament decides that it is to be set up,


to have the right to decide where the Assembly should be sited?

Mr. Morris: I should have said that I am glad that the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) has welcomed the announcement. It will obviously be for the Assembly in due course to decide where it wants to meet. That is the sort of issue on which I expect there to be a great deal of argument from my right hon. Friend and from many other Members who represent other areas. However, Cardiff is the capital of Wales. I regard it as right and proper—I hope that the Assembly will take the same view—that it should meet in the capital city, whatever the convenience of meeting anywhere else.

Sir Raymond Gower: Without discussing the merits and the nature of the Government's devolution proposals, as there must be uncertainty in view of the precarious future of the Government and of legislation, may I ask whether the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate that the Government should be committed to substantial expenditure in respect of legislation which has not yet been passed?

Mr. Morris: I have no hesitation in saying that the Government's future is not precarious. The Government will carry out their manifesto and their programme. I should be seriously at fault were I not to make the necessary preparations to ensure that there is a home for the Assembly when it is established.

Mr. Hooson: Will the Secretary of State heed further the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes)? As the Assembly is a new departure, is it not important that the site should be geographically convenient for the whole of Wales? Will the Secretary of State consider the possibility of siting the Assembly at Newtown, where there is a new town development?

Mr. Morris: I recognise the strength with which the hon. and learned Gentleman is putting forward his case, perhaps with his tongue in his cheek. I am sure that he will be putting a similar case for the siting of the headquarters of the Development Board for Rural Wales. He might have to elect whether the Assembly or the headquarters should be sited there.

Mr. Abse: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what were the total administrative and physical costs expended before the plans to house an Assembly in the Temple of Peace and Health were abandoned; why the intended capital outlay to house the Assembly has increased by more than £1 million since April; what length of lease, and on what terms, is being obtained at the Exchange; and what is the total anticipated commitment including the capital outlay for the Exchange project.

Mr. John Morris: I understand that about £17,000 was spent by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on studies of the Temple of Peace by consultants, together with a further £7,000 on internal departmental activities. The capital costs at the Exchange are higher because the building is bigger and older; but these costs are largely offset by lower running costs, greater availability of accommodation and other factors. Thus the total costs of the two projects are similar. The current market rental will be paid for the Exchange. The lease is for 20 years but can be terminated after 10 years.

Mr. Abse: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm the lead story—the happy story—in The Times this morning indicating that the Government do not intend to proceed with the devolution Bill becoming an Act without a referendum in Wales? As the Marplan poll made it unmistakably clear that the people of Wales do not want devolution in any form, is it not outrageous not only that these sums should have been expended but, what is more, that at a time when the people of Wales are more concerned about housing their own people millions more should be spent upon housing an unwanted salaried Assembly?

Mr. Morris: I have no knowledge at all of the statement in this morning's edition of The Times.

Mr. Wigley: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take the opportunity of making his own and the Government's total rebuttal of the allegations made by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) in a recent newspaper article that civil servants could not be trusted to run the Welsh Assembly?

Mr. Abse: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have made no such statement. Therefore, no reference can be made to it. I must ask for your protection, if such I need, as it is entirely taken out of context and it is a very serious allegation to make.

Mr. Speaker: I deprecate the hurling of charges, especially at Question time, but the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has made his position quite clear.

West Wales Steel Development Committee

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the West Wales Steel Development Committee.

Mr. John Morris: The committee has not sought a meeting, but I have close and regular contact with many of the bodies represented on it.

Mr. Edwards: Does the Secretary of State agree with West Glamorgan County Council that the consents given by the Government in July fall far short of the British Steel Corporation's strategy and the case advanced by the West Wales Steel Development Committee that West Wales faces further massive job losses and any further delay will put in jeopardy the chances of the area competing in steel products in United Kingdom and world markets?

Mr. Morris: I am deeply aware of the concern in West Glamorgan, and I am in close personal touch with the leaders of the steel industry in that part of the world. I spoke to them only last Friday. The hon. Gentleman referred to delays, but the Government have made a firm offer to the industry amounting to the expenditure of £350 million, which is nearly 30 times more than the proposed cut in increased Government expenditure on the Welsh Office Vote. If there is any question of losing time, I hope that the steel industry will take up the whole of that offer as soon as possible. I regret that it has not done so.

Mr. Edwards: Is it not true that the money in question does not add to steelmaking capacity and that that is the central point that people are pressing on the Government?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman should familiarise himself with the problem and perhaps discuss it with his hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer). The offer we have made is that the industry can invest in expenditure of £350 million on coke ovens, continuous casting work and a hot strip mill. That offer does not prejudice the reappraisal that the Government have asked the BSC to make of the needs of Shotton and development at Port Talbot. No one is more passionately concerned than I to ensure that we have a viable steel industry in this country, in particular in my constituency. Against that background we have given the go-ahead for the necessary investment at Port Talbot, and I hope that the BSC will take it up.

Welsh National Water Development Authority

Mr. Roderick: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to meet the Welsh National Water Development Authority.

Mr. Alec Jones: I had arranged to meet early in November the late Chairman of the Authority. Hon. Members will join me in sending deepest sympathy to Lady Brecon. I shall now resume the regular meetings which I had been holding, prior to my illness, with representatives of the Authority.

Mr. Roderick: We share my hon. Friend's regret at the death of Lord Brecon. Our arguments were always about policy and never of a personal nature. Will my hon. Friend intervene in the proposal made by the Authority for direct billing? I am disturbed to find that the Authority is still progressing the proposal, and I ask my hon. Friend to stop it at this stage. Will he also speak to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about taking the Craig Goch reservoir out of the regional context and considering it in the United Kingdom context, so that we may have the maximum reservoir there and not the minimum reservoir as is now proposed?

Mr. Alec Jones: We have already told water authorities that in considering whether to extend direct billing they must pay close attention to the overriding need to avoid any net increase in public expenditure. At a meeting last Thursday—at


which the Government were represented by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Sport and Recreation—with representatives of the local authority associations and the National Water Council, the question of direct billing was discussed. As a result of that meeting, we are considering what further advice should be given. Most hon. Members will be glad to know that three authorities at least have come together and will, we hope, agree on a solution to the problem of Craig Goch that will result in the supply of water to people in Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Does the Minister accept that the Welsh experience of the long drought this summer is final proof, if proof were needed, of the urgent need for a truly Welsh national water authority, covering the whole of Wales, invested with adequate powers to develop our rich water resources, with power to sell surplus resources to the industries and conurbations in England which need them and to establish a Welsh national grid?

Mr. Alec Jones: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I do not agree with a word he has uttered on this subject. I believe that the resources of the United Kingdom must be developed as a whole for the betterment of all our people.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the proposed arrangement for collecting water charges can only mean rocketing costs followed by great public indignation? Does he further agree that local authorities are perfectly capable of doing this job—as they have done in the past—at far less cost?

Mr. Alec Jones: The answer is not quite as simple as my hon. Friend suggests. My information is that it is not only a question of whether local authorities are capable of doing this job. Some local authorities want direct billing and others want to continue the present practice. The question of cost is a matter of doubt. Further information is necessary before advice can be given. The WNWDA is paying £1·16 million to local authorities this year for the collection service. The Authority's estimate is that direct billing would save them £600,000 a year. The solutions are not quite as

simple as they might seem to be at first sight.

Local Authority Expenditure

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he is having with local authorities concerning public expenditure cuts.

Mr. Alec Jones: Public expenditure is regularly discussed at meetings of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance, chaired by my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that if there are to be any cuts they should be made in the number of chief executives and not of dustmen? Does he further agree that the huge bureaucracy created by the Conservative reorganisation of local government has been astronomical in cost and has played a major part in hampering the recovery of the British economy?

Mr. Alec Jones: There is a great deal to be said for the Chiefs and Indians argument which my hon. Friend has put forward today and on other occasions. My view is that local government reorganisation did not help to make local government either more efficient or cheaper.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that we on this Bench do not accept that there should be any reduction in public expenditure in Wales, particularly on housing and social services? Will he ensure that local authorities in Wales are aware of the needs of their areas and the need for public expenditure?

Mr. Alec Jones: The hon. Gentleman likes to refer to cuts, but I remind him that the July measures, which involved cuts in Wales of £12 million, were accompanied by an increase in expenditure on housing in Wales of £20 million. Therefore, the net effect was a gain—not a loss—for Wales in public expenditure terms.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Will the Minister confirm that, contrary to recent newspaper reports, on a population basis Wales gets a fair share of the rate support grant, her population being 5·6 per cent. of the total for England and Wales and the amount of rate support grant received


by Wales in 1976–77 being 7·4 per cent. of the total?

Mr. Alec Jones: I am advised that Wales's share of rate support grant is higher per capita than that in England.

Mr. Hooson: Does the Minister know what percentage of the expenditure of local authorities in Wales goes on salaries, wages and so on as opposed to the other services?

Mr. Alec Jones: I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to table that question, and I will see that he gets an answer.

Cleddau Bridge

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has reconsidered his decision about the costs of the Cleddau Bridge.

Mr. John Morris: No new facts have emerged to warrant this.

Mr. Evans: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the £1¼ million burden of interest which has to be borne by Dyfed, which includes the old counties of Cardigan and Carmarthen, which had no responsibility for building this bridge—in fact, this burden should be borne by the Government—is equal to the total of the cuts in roads and almost equal to the total cuts in education? Is not this totally unjust?

Mr. Morris: As regards the responsibility of Carmarthen and Ceredigion, we—I am one of them—must carry the burden for the activities of the old county council of Pembroke. This is the result of local government reorganisation perpetrated by the Administration of the Conservatives. I understand that for the past year the net expenditure for the county was just over £1 million, not £1¼ million.
As for the Government not doing anything, I must make it clear that the combination of the resources element and the needs element of the rate support grant which the Government make means that three-quarters of the total of that cost has been met by the Government and only one-quarter by the ratepayers. That should be put in its right perspective, too.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Should not the Secretary of State make it clear that the

responsibility for the present situation rests not on the old authority but on an unforeseeable disaster which added £7 million or £8 million to the cost of the bridge? I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is to meet local authority representatives this week. Will he take this opportunity of transferring the burden even more equitably to the taxpayer than he has just suggested? Is there not a special need to do so at a time when unemployment in the area is at the shocking level of one in five?

Mr. Morris: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have welcomed the fact that three-quarters of the burden is now being carried by the central Government. We all know the history of the building of this bridge. Pembrokeshire County Council decided to go it alone on the building of the bridge. There was no question of central Government financing while the Conservative Government were in power from 1970 to 1974, except for the statement by the hon. Gentleman on the eve of the 1974 General Election, with all the authority of a Conservative spokesman, that if they were elected to power there would be no toll charges. I greatly look forward to seeing what will happen about that statement.

Morriston Hospital

Mr. Ifor Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give priority to rebuilding Morriston Hospital in view of its state of dilapidation causing a danger to the health of patients and staff.

Mr. Barry Jones: My right hon. and learned Friend recently visited Morriston Hospital with my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). I am well aware of the need for major redevelopment there. We shall take account of this when deciding the future capital programme.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend will be aware that this hospital was built during a wartime emergency and that, despite its deplorable working conditions, it has rendered remarkable service to the community, thanks to the dedication of its staff. Is he aware further that this hospital provides sub-regional service to the whole of South-West Wales and as such


deserves the highest priority in future hospital planning?

Mr. Barry Jones: There is light at the end of the tunnel for this project. The question is to be decided soon as to how much will be invested and precisely when the starting date will be. I, too, wish to say that the work done at Morriston Hospital is magnificent.

Mr. Tom Ellis: I sympathise with the problem at Morriston, but may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that the position at Wrexham is even worse—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a completely different question that should be on the Order Paper. If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask a question about Wrexham, he can hardly do so on a Question relating to Morriston.

Mr. Ellis: With the greatest respect to you, Mr. Speaker, I intend to couple the argument between Morriston and Wrexham into this question, because the whole question is one of priority. I want to ask my hon. Friend to ensure that Wrexham, which is the one large population centre in Wales which has not had substantial capital spent on it since the establishment of the National Health Service, retains top priority over all other schemes, on two grounds. The first is the merits of the case. The second is that public disquiet, which is already beginning to express itself at the inferior service—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the Minister wish to reply?

Mr. Barry Jones: Briefly, Mr. Speaker. My constituency is next to Wrexham. I know precisely the points my hon. Friend is making.

Fluoridation

Mr. Grist: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has received from area health authorities for the fluoridation of water supplies; and if he will give an estimate of the cost of each scheme.

Mr. Barry Jones: None. Our approval is not required. But I understand that Mid, West and South Glamorgan Area Health Authorities have all decided to introduce new schemes when finances

permit. Estimated costs are available only for West and South Glamorgan at about £50,000 and £100,000 respectively.

Mr. Grist: Is not the Minister aware that the expenditure of such moneys at a time when there is a cut-back in essential services would be viewed with amazement by members of the public and, indeed, by those elected councils in the South Glamorgan area which opposed the introduction of fluoridation, which is an extremely debatable form of compulsory medication?

Mr. Barry Jones: The Cardiff Community Health Council, the St. Fagan's Community Health Council and all the professional opinion in the area support the area health authority. Fluoridation is by far the cheapest and most effective means of safeguarding dental health. It is our policy to encourage it. Dental health in Wales is not in a good state.

Mr. Nelson: Because one-third of the people over the age of 16 have no teeth and because dental decay sets in before 16, will the Minister give priority to fluoridation? Will he, in particular, encourage other Government services to provide, for instance, voluntary application of fluoride through mouthwashes, fluoride at school and topical application under the National Health Service?

Mr. Barry Jones: Capital costs such as installations at waterworks should be borne by the central Government and not by individual area health authorities.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Whatever the merits of fluoridation, is it not wrong that it should be carried out by an area health authority which is a nominated body and not by elected bodies, the county councils, as was the case before reorganisation of the National Health Service?

Mr. Barry Jones: My hon. Friend has adopted a statesmanlike attitude in this matter in his constituency. I expect area health authorities thoroughly to consult local opinion, but their decision is their own in the light of their duty to safeguard health.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hooson.

Sir Raymond Gower: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. Is not Question No. 15 in order?

Mr. Speaker: I am going by the clock. The hon. Gentleman should study the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Pay Research Unit

Mr. Hooson: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will consider changing the constitution of the Civil Service Pay Research Unit so as to include independent advice and assessment.

Mr. Thorpe: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will review the constitution of the Civil Service Pay Research Unit.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Charles R. Morris): May I preface my reply by emphasising that the Pay Research Unit procedures are in suspense during the current period of the Government's pay policies. However, the procedures for determining Civil Service pay have been kept under regular review since they were recommended by the Priestley Royal Commission and the Government are naturally taking the opportunity provided by the current suspension of pay research to look at various aspects of the system. But these are matters which need to be examined very carefully and any suggestions or proposals will have to be the subject of full consultation with the interested parties.

Mr. Hooson: Is the Minister aware of the grave public concern about earnings and related benefits in the nonproductive public service being out of balance with the earnings and related benefits in the productive area? As the public non-productive sector does not seem to be subject to the Pay Code, and nor do the benefits and pensions, is it not time that independent advice was made available to the unit?

Mr. Morris: The hon. and learned Gentleman is misleading the House and the country by suggesting that civil servants' pay is not subject to Government pay policy. It is. Civil servants have had no more and no less than comparable groups in the private sector.

Mr. Thorpe: The Civil Service Pay Research Unit is fully staffed by civil servants. Since hon. Members are prepared to bring in outside advice to determine their own terms and conditions, might that not be right for the Civil Service?

Mr. Morris: The Government are exploring ways in which it might be possible to ensure that justice is not only done to Civil Service pay but is manifestly seen to be done. I reject the right hon. Gentleman's implication that in some ways there is a conspiracy among civil servants to determine their own rates of pay. That is completely misleading.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Has my hon. Friend noticed that this is a unique parliamentary occasion, because, of the 14 Questions tabled to the Minister for the Civil Service, nine come from the Parliamentary Liberal Party? Is that not unusual, and can he explain this concerted attack on the Civil Service?

Mr. Morris: I suppose my hon. Friend is right to say that today we are witnessing a new parliamentary phenomenon. Civil servants, public servants, retired policemen, nurses and all the people who have dedicated their lives to the public service must be wondering what they have done to incur the wrath of these Westminster Order Paper warriors.

Mr. McCrindle: I do not in any way wish to attack the Civil Service, but will the Minister accept that there is considerable resentment, particularly among pensioners benefiting from private schemes who look at the inflation-proofing of Civil Service pension schemes and find their own standards of living falling? Will the Government consider inflation-proofing both public and private pension schemes and try to bring an end to inflation as soon as possible?

Mr. Morris: I accept that there may be some resentment among those who are enjoying the benefits of a private pension scheme when they see the inflation-proofed Civil Service scheme. But the feelings of resentment are not based on fact. If the hon. Gentleman examines the basis of the Civil Service indexing of pension schemes, he will see that there is no injustice.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been much hypocrisy about Civil Service pensions among Liberal Members? Will he tell the House who introduced the 1971 Pensions (Increase) Act and what was the attitude of the Liberal Party to its introduction?

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend, with perception, has reminded me that the 1971 Act was initiated by the Conservative Government. Not one Liberal Member took part in the debate on that Bill in the House of Commons. In the House of Lords the Liberal spokesman strongly welcomed the Bill.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Apart from the intra-parliamentary inter-party row, is not the real problem that, if a pension is indexed on £3,000 today, in 15 years at a 13 per cent, rate of inflation it will be £18,000? That is the real problem facing the Government, the House and the public, and something must be done about it. It is a nonsense economy.

Mr. Morris: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question in mathematics is for him to join the Government in getting inflation down.

Mr. Tom King: Does the Minister appreciate that in addition to the problem of pensions the basic level of salaries is causing wide concern throughout the country, particularly in industries which have lost people to jobs with seemingly less responsibility but with higher salaries in the public service? Is not this a feature that should be examined by the Pay Research Unit?

Mr. Morris: I should like to see the evidence for the hon. Gentleman's claim. The view that the Civil Service is leading in pay and pensions is not borne out by the facts. Three to four years ago, despite all the advantages now being attributed to Civil Service pay and conditions, we could not attract people from the private sector to the Civil Service. The salaries, pensions and perquisites have not changed in the meanwhile.

Public Appointments

Mr. Forman: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether his Department has any plans for limiting the extent and the cost of paid public appointments made by Ministers.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: No, Sir. Responsibility for appointments rests with departmental Ministers, who, as a matter of policy, keep under review the numbers and costs of the appointments they make. In many cases the numbers of appointments are enumerated in the controlling statute or constitution.

Mr. Forman: Have the Government considered the case for encouraging the establishing of a committee to look into the whole matter, preferably along the lines of the Public Accounts Committee? Does the Minister accept that, if the Government agreed, that would go at least some way towards allaying the justified suspicions of the apparently endless growth of ministerial appointments to non-political bodies outside the Civil Service?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman's opinions and observations are fascinating, but they do not come within my field of responsibility.

Mr. Gow: In the Government's view, what are the qualities of the new Chairman of Cable and Wireless which prompted the Government to make that appointment?

Mr. Morris: The qualities and the criteria for such appointments are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.

Pensions

Mr. Penhaligon: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if the Civil Service Pay Research Unit has made any comparisons between pensions paid in the private sector and pensions paid in the public sector.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: The Pay Research Unit obtains details of the pension arrangements applying in the outside firms covered by its surveys on a confidential basis. This information is included in its reports and is used to adjust Civil Service pay to allow for differences both in pension benefits and pension contributions.

Mr. Penhaligon: Does the Minister agree that the vast majority of the British population, retired and working, will have a reduction in their standard of living during the next 12 months? How can he defend a system which lets this elite body


off that grave result of our economic chaos?

Mr. Morris: I do not accept that civil servants and the 1 million public servants who have given a lifetime of service to the community and the State are in any way an elite body.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEVOLUTION LEGISLATION

Mr. Canavan: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he can now name a date for the publication of the Bill on devolution.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): The Bill will be introduced early in the coming Session.

Mr. Canavan: Will my hon. Friend deny the silly rumours that the Government are likely to give way to IMF pressure to scrap the devolution proposals? Bearing in mind last week's opinion poll published in the Scotsman indicating that the vast majority of Scots want a referendum, which would conclusively show that the vast majority of Scots would prefer devolution to SNP-style separation, will my hon. Friend and the Government continue to consider proposals for holding a referendum?

Mr. Smith: I read with astonishment the story to which my hon. Friend has referred. It is about the silliest story to appear in any newspaper this year, and that is saying quite a lot. My hon. Friend is right in telling the House that recently, according to opinion polls, there has been a convincing demonstration of support for the Government's policy on devolution and an indication that the vast majority of people in Scotland wish to remain full members of the United Kingdom. This encourages the Government to think that their proposals are not only right but popular.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Minister hopeful that he can fulfil the promise of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) that when the Bill on devolution is published we shall also be able to see the White Paper on devolution for England? How are the Government getting on with their discussions on that matter?

Mr. Smith: My right hon. Friend the Lord President has made it clear that

we shall publish the consultative document on the English regions before the Second Reading debate on the devolution Bill. That is a categorical assurance that will be adhered to. There has been some fair criticism of the Government for not having produced the document before now.

Mr. Whitelaw: Is it really the Government's intention still to go on with the idea of having one Bill for both Scotland and Wales when the problems in the two countries are totally different, as everyone knows? What is the purpose of going on with the one Bill when obviously two Bills would be far better?

Mr. Smith: If we had two Bills for the two countries, they would not both be passed within the next parliamentary Session. We believe that the proposals for both concern themselves with transfer of powers outwards from Westminster and Whitehall and that, therefore, it is appropriate that they should be dealt with together. I should like the right hon. Gentleman or another representative of the Opposition to explain how it is possible to be in favour of devolution for Scotland but not for Wales.

Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that while there may be pressure for devolution for Scotland and Wales, although I doubt that there is very much in Wales, there is certaintly no real pressure for devolution in England? May I ask him not to consider it in any way a matter of vital importance that such a White Paper should be published before we discuss these unnecessary Bills—unnecessary for Britain, anyway?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I disagree with his major point. We consider that the Bill for Scotland and Wales is of paramount importance. We shall produce for the English regions a consultative document, on which my hon. Friend's views and the views of all hon. Members will be welcomed.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that recent speeches, statements and writings by persons who hold the highest offices in the State have made clear and have underlined the almost desperate need to decentralise power? Is he aware that the main weakness of the British system of government


is its extreme centralism, and that powers should be decentralised from the bureaucrats, who now hold it, to the people?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman covered a very wide field in that question. I shall confine myself to saying that we believe that the decentralisation of power and the increase of democratic accountability, which lie at the heart of our devolution proposals, are a desirable step forward in modern British government.

Mr. Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the report in The Times today that there is to be a referendum on devolution? Is it correct? If so, will he make it plain that it is not for better, more open government but is simply to satisfy dissidents in his own ranks?

Mr. Smith: My right hon. Friend the Lord President has made it clear that the Government would entertain no referendum in advance of the Bill which is to be published on devolution. If any other proposals are made, they will be considered in Parliament, and the merits and demerits put forward by their advocates and those who oppose such suggestions will be fully considered by the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTTISH ASSEMBLY

Mr. Grow: asked the Lord President of the Council how many representations he has received to the effect that the Government's proposals to set up an Assembly in Scotland will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom.

Mr. John Smith: Twelve, Sir.

Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman should not be misled by the round dozen of representations he has received. Is he aware that the cause of discontent in Scotland lies not in the absence of an assembly but in growing revulsion against continuingly unsuccessful government?

Mr. Smith: There are causes for discontent in Scotland as in other parts of the United Kingdom. Where I disagree with the hon. Gentleman is that my assessment and that of the Government is that the majority of people in Scotland welcome our proposals for the reform of government. I have as much knowledge of the Scottish electorate as the hon.

Gentleman has, given whom he represents in Parliament.

Mr. Adley: The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) referred to the question of a referendum. Is the Minister aware that, if there is a referendum and if the proposal is that only the people of Scotland and Wales should take part, he must bear in mind that for over 270 years millions of Scots and Welsh people have moved to other parts of the Kingdom without considering that they have travelled abroad? There are in my constituency many people of Scottish and Welsh descent who would reasonably expect to be consulted on these matters.

Mr. Smith: Of course, Scots and Welsh people do not consider that they are travelling abroad in those circumstances. I do not consider myself to be abroad at this moment. We shall have an opportunity when the Bill is debated for all points of view from all parts of the United Kingdom to be discussed in the House. Questions such as those concerning possible referenda can be discussed by hon. Members.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: As Scotland is over-represented in the House—I speak as an Englishman—can the Minister assure us that, under any proposals about the extent to which powers are devolved to Edinburgh or Cardiff, representation in this House will be reduced to the same extent?

Mr. Russell Kerr: That applies to the English counties as well.

Mr. Smith: This is an important matter which the House will no doubt wish to discuss when the devolution proposals are considered. The Kilbrandon Commission examined the matter and made certain proposals. It thought it impractical to have MPs dealing only with certain matters in the House. This is a fairly complicated matter. The Government would like to hear what hon. Members have to say when the Bill is debated.

Mr. Skinner: As the political temperature is likely to be taken this week at Walsall, Workington and Newcastle, to what extent is devolution a matter of extreme public concern at those three places?

Mr. Smith: I imagine that it is of less concern in those constituencies since they are in England.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONOURABLE MEMBERS AND THE LAW

Mr. Skinner: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he has any intention of introducing legislation to subject Members of Parliament to the ordinary processes of law in all cases where bribery and corruption are concerned.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 20th October, the Government are considering the report of the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life, including the recommendation that
Parliament should consider bringing corruption, bribery and attempted bribery of a Member of Parliament acting in his Parliamentary capacity within the ambit of the criminal law.
This is a question for Parliament, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will report to the House how he thinks we can best make progress in the matter.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one thing that could give a fillip to the people who will be voting this week would be the announcement that in the next Session of Parliament we shall carry out the recommendations made by Lord Salmon in the Royal Commission's report to the extent that Members of Parliament will be treated like ordinary citizens in matters of corruption and bribery?

Mr. Rees: It would be as well for the House to consider the matter in depth. There is a major question whether, on matters affecting the House, outside bodies should consider what to do about Members of Parliament. Without prejudging the issue, I can say that we cannot expect quick legislation. We should think about the implications of the Salmon Commission's report.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISITS)

Mr. Adley: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will list those countries which he intends to visit before the end of 1976.

Mr. John Smith: My right hon. Friend hopes to represent the Labour Party at the Congress of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party.

Mr. Adley: Will the Minister tell the Lord President of the Council, when he is better, that some of us used to consider him a democrat, but that we have long since become disillusioned with him? Will he also tell his right hon. Friend not to go trouble-making in Spain, a country that is trying to find the road to democracy, while simultaneously coming to this House and acting as an apologist for an Indian dictatorship?

Mr. Smith: That supplementary question is below the standards we normally look for in this House. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has always done a great deal to contribute to the furtherance of democracy.

Mr. Heffer: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is right that the Lord President of the Council should attend the Congress of the Socialist Workers' Party in Spain, a country which has not known democracy and which still does not know it? Will not the visit itself be a great contribution towards the democratisation of an ex-Fascist régime? Does my hon. Friend also agree that my right hon. Friend has never at any time defended the present lack of democracy in India?

Mr. Smith: My right hon. Friend has been consistent in his defence of democracy all over the world, and I am sure that any country or any group of people have a great deal to learn from him. Furthermore, his presence at the Congress of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party is another demonstration of the internationalism of the Labour Party.

Oral Answers to Questions — AMENDMENTS (MR. SPEAKER'S SELECTION)

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am most grateful to have the opportunity to ask you whether you will consider, though not necessarily replying today, dispensing to the House an act of grace and discretion by the Chair—not a duty—which would certainly be of great convenience to hon. Members.
I asked your predecessor, Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster, eight or 10 years ago whether he would place in the "No" Lobby a list of the provisional selection of amendments to Bills which at a convenient moment in time he had it in mind to call—not a list that would bind him to call all the amendments so selected, or indeed would prohibit him from calling amendments that were not on the list, but a list giving an indication to the House before a debate of the mind of the Chair. I am sure that hon. Members on all sides of the House agree that such a practice has been of great convenience to the House.
However, that practice was restricted in interpretation and practice to amendments on Bills rather than to amendments on motions. My respectful request to you today, Mr. Speaker, is that you should consider indicating, by papers placed in the "No" Lobby, the amendments which you had it in mind provisionally to call to motions before the House as well as to Bills.
There are many amendments to motions which are of more than party interest—namely, of interest to Parliament as a whole. However, once the House is sitting it is not mechanically very easy for Members who wish to speak in a debate to discuss with Members on the other side of the House amendments to motions with which they may agree or disagree. When there is a plethora of amendments, it is difficult to know which amendments the Chair has it in mind provisionally to call and this places a restriction on hon. Members because, by the laws of mathematics, only a certain number of hon. Members can be called by Mr. Speaker to speak in any debate.
This consideration applies to today's events as to matters on other days, and I hope that you will be good enough, Mr.

Speaker, to consider whether to place in some convenient place, be it in the "No" Lobby or elsewhere, your provisional selection of amendments.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I undertake to consider what he said and I shall inform the House tomorrow.

CONDUCT OF MEMBERS

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Prime Minister to move the order of reference to the Select Committee on the conduct of Members, I should like to explain the procedure that I propose to follow.
When motions setting up Select Committees are moved in the House they usually go through "on the nod" and for that reason the Questions on orders of reference, nominations and powers are put en bloc to save time. When such motions are debated, and more particularly when amendments have been selected, it is clear that the practice is to put the several Questions on the order of reference, nomination of the Committee and its powers separately.
I propose, however, that all the separate motions comprising orders of reference, nomination and powers in this instance be debated first, together with such amendments as I have selected, so that we may have a broad debate on the motion and on the amendments, again to save time.
At the conclusion of the debate I shall put the separate Questions on each paragraph, calling each Member whose amendment I have selected to move his amendment if he so wishes at the proper place in the paragraph concerned, provided that it has not already fallen as a result of the House having agreed to an earlier amendment.
I have selected the amendment in line 22, to leave out from 'That' to end of line 24 and insert
'the Committee shall conduct its proceedings in public:'.
I have also selected both amendments in lines 24, which are as follows:
In line 24, at end insert—
'That no witness summoned to appear before the Committee shall claim Crown Privilege as a justification for refusing to answer questions asked by the Committee:'.


In line 24, at end insert—
That the Committee shall at their discretion sit in public if they consider that at any stage of the inquiry the requirements of justice or of the public interest requires them to do so notwithstanding any of the foregoing:'.
The amendment to leave out lines 22 to 24 is unnecessary since under the arrangement I have just announced the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) may vote against the motion when I put the Question on the paragraph comprised in lines 22 to 24.
Finally, I remind the House that the conduct of Members may not be criticised save on a substantive motion which admits of a distinct vote of the House. This is not such a motion since it goes not further than appointing a Select Committee to make a particular inquiry. While it is open to hon. Members to refer to circumstances attending the inquiry, it will not be in order to make allegations against individual Members. This would prejudge the Committee's findings and recommendations.

CONDUCT OF MEMBERS

That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the conduct and activities of Members of this House in connection with the affairs of Mr. J. G. L. Poulson; to consider whether any such conduct or activities amounted to a contempt of the House or was inconsistent with the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its


5
Members; and to report:



That the Committee do consist of ten Members:



That Miss Harvie Anderson, Mr. Peter Blaker, Mr. Leon Brittan, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. Max Madden, Mr.William Ross, Mr. Donald Stewart, Mr. Michael Stewart, Mr. Jeffrey Thomas, and Mr. Peter Thomas be members of the Committee.


10
That Five be the Quorum of the Committee:



That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; and to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House:


15
That the Committee shall lay before the House all such oral and documentary evidence as upon consideration by them shall appear to be relevant and such as may fairly be taken into account:



That Mr. Attorney General shall attend the Committee so far as the Committee may require to present evidence relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry; and may give such further assistance to the Committee as may be appropriate:


20
That the Committee have power to appoint persons to carry out such work relating to the Committee's order of reference as the Committee may determine:



That the Committee have leave to hear Counsel to such extent as they shall see fit:



That no person not being a member of the Committee shall be present during any of the proceedings of the Committee unless required by the Committee to be present for the purposes of their inquiry:


25
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House until the end of this Parliament.

The motion stands on the Order Paper in my name and that of my right hon. Friends the Lord President and the Home Secretary.

The House will be grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your guidance on the nature of debate and the way in which you propose to conduct it.

The motion arises from the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on Tuesday 19th October about the Poulson case. He then said:
There are not sufficient grounds to merit the commencement of any further prosecutions or continued inquiry into the possibility of obtaining further evidence of criminal offences. I have accordingly agreed that the investigation should now be brought to an end."—[Official Report, 19th October, 1976; Vol. 917, c. 361.]

In 1972 the decision was taken that police investigations and prosecutions should have precedence over other investigations into the Poulson affair. The names of some hon. Members have been made public in connection with the bankruptcy proceedings of Mr. Poulson, but their alleged connections were but one facet of a complex matter. The view was taken in 1972 that to have referred these matters to Parliament could have pre-empted decisions by the then

Attorney-General, or later by his successor, with regard to prosecutions. The present Government reaffirmed that decision when they came to power in 1974, and although it was reviewed from time to time, the decision was adhered to.

With the ending of the prospect of further prosecutions, referred to by the Attorney-General on 19th October, the time has come for the House to consider the matter again, and in my statement of 21st October I said that the Government would have early discussions with other parties in the House about the composition, terms of reference and powers of a Select Committee to make a full and thorough investigation into the allegations made against hon. Members acting in their parliamentary capacity in connection with Mr. Poulson's affairs. In the absence of the Lord President, these consultations have been carried out by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, to whom I am very grateful, and the Government's proposals are contained in the motion now before the House.

There is no dispute about the need for a thorough inquiry by the House. The good name of individual Members has been questioned, and that involves the


standing of Parliament itself. Hon. Members individually and collectively will be vindicated only by a thorough investigation in which justice is done to all those concerned. That requires not only full investigation of those who may have failed to live up to the standards which this House expects of its Members but also fair treatment of all those whose names have been used, whether they have been involved in the matter or not.

An inquiry can take various forms. Some might prefer a tribunal of inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act of 1921. Those of us who recall the Lynskey Tribunal will well remember the volume of criticism which those proceedings attracted. There was no universal approbation at the end of its deliberations. The Government have also taken into account some of the observations of the Royal Commission under Lord Salmon's chairmanship, which reported in 1966. I do not refer to the latest report.

That Commission noted that the exceptional inquisitorial powers conferred on a tribunal under the Act would necessarily expose the ordinary citizen to have aspects of his private life uncovered and to the risk of having baseless allegations made against him. The Government do not consider that the allegations which have been made so far constitute anything in the nature of a nation-wide crisis of confidence and we have therefore come down against a tribunal.

As regards Select Committees, there are precedents for such appointments in comparable circumstances, although fortunately those have been rare. The allegations which we have read about relate to Members making speeches or otherwise acting in their parliamentary capacity. Those actions therefore enjoy the protection of parliamentary privilege and are not matters within the jurisdiction of the courts. They are matters for the House, and the House has ample power to investigate them and to apply its own considerable sanctions if those are warranted.

There are important differences between the proceedings of the courts and those of a Select Committee. In the courts, there are specified charges, known to defendants beforehand. The evidence

brought forward has to be relevant to those charges. In this case there are no specified charges, nor is the identity known of all those against whom allegations might be made. There are no rules of the House which say that this or that evidence is inadmissible.

The order of reference for the Select Committee in the motion is drawn up with those differences in mind. It will enable a thorough-going inquiry to be held and all the facts germane to it will be laid bare. The motion provides that the inquiry, free, as I have said, from the restrictions and rules of proceedings in courts of law, shall be conducted in such a manner as to safeguard the rights of hon. Members to be treated fairly. The scope of the inquiry fully covers the range of allegations to which publicity has been given.

With the other parties in the House, the Government have carefully considered the composition of the Committee. I said in the House on 20th October that I shared the view then expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) that the Committee of Privileges was not an appropriate body to consider the matters raised. That is partly a question of composition. The membership proposed for the Select Committee now numbers 10. It has been drawn from four of the parties in the House and it includes six hon. Members who are not members of the Privy Council. All of them are colleagues who are respected by us and who bring to the Committee a wealth of experience and relevant abilities. We can have full confidence in them.

The Attorney-General, who is a member of the Committee of Privileges, will not be a member of the Select Committee, but the order of reference provides that he shall attend the Committee as the Committee may require to present evidence and that he may give further assistance to the Committee as appropriate. I believe that to be the best arrangement. That is what I envisaged in my statement on 21st October.

I also said then, and the order of reference now provides, that the Committee should
have power to send for persons, papers and records".

It will also
have power to appoint persons to carry out such work relating to the Committee's order of reference as the Committee may determine".

That is the form of words recently used for the Procedure Committee. It would, for example, allow the Committee to appoint accountants to look at balance sheets, should such assistance be needed. These will, I hope, recommend themselves to the House as straightforward and necessary powers.

The order of reference also provides
That the Committee have leave to hear Counsel to such extent as they shall see fit".

I have no doubt that the Committee will exercise that discretion wisely, avoiding the formality of court proceedings. That is the intention of that paragraph in the order of reference. It is necessary to express it as a power in order to avoid the imposition of the formality of full court procedures, but our intention is that, in the sense which I have described, the Committee will regard it as a requirement. I believe that that can be left to the good sense of the Committee.

I now come to the question of publication of oral and documentary evidence. The Government considered this matter carefully, and the order of reference does not merely empower but requires the Committee to lay before the House
… all such … evidence as upon consideration by them shall appear to be relevant, and such as may fairly be taken into account".

I particularly ask the House to look at that in conjunction with the other requirement on which I know the attention of hon. Members will be concentrated:
That no person not being a member of the Committee shall be present during any of the proceedings of the Committee unless required by the Committee to be present for the purposes of their inquiry".

In our view, those two provisions give the means to provide an open and fair inquiry.

As hon. Members know, any Committee of the House has power to exclude the public from its proceedings. Hon. Members who are not members of the Committee are generally prepared to withdraw from the Committee's deliberations when required to do so. In practice, in no proceedings before the Committee of Privileges has either a Member

of the House or a member of the public attended during any part of the proceedings, save as a witness.

The Procedure Committee of 1971–72 recommended that hon. Members should no longer have the right to be present at the deliberations of Select Committees and that the Committees should also have the power to exclude Members when taking evidence. Those recommendations have not so far been adopted.

We are not dealing here with the general run of Select Committee business. We are dealing with an inquiry of a very unusual nature. It is, I believe, unprecedented in its generality and lack of restriction as to both the names and the allegations which may fall to be considered within the terms of reference. The point of having such an inquiry is that it shall pursue the truth and be clearly seen to have done so. That is what the order of reference provides.

It is our view that, if the Committee sat in public, evidence, whatever its basis—whether it was groundless or not—would be subject to daily public sifting. A lie can be half-way around the world before truth has got his boots on. We should have instant judgments on allegations before the Committee had been able to weigh them, before the reputations at stake could be properly upheld or cast down, which might do unnecessary harm not only to the individuals concerned but also to the standing of this House. This is what has happened sometimes in the past in cases before tribunals of inquiry where the evidence was heard in public.

The House has a duty to protect the innocent, as we have a responsibility to punish a misdemeanour. Those in public life, as we are, are especially vulnerable to slander and false allegations, and, if such persons offer themselves as candidates for election, such baseless smears can lead not only to a loss of faith in the individual but also to the undermining of belief in the standing of hon. Members generally.

Although I can see the case both ways, these are the reasons which have persuaded the Government. We considered the matter most carefully. I am sorry that words such as "cover-up" and "whitewash" have been used by some hon. Members. It is nothing of the sort.

There is, I think. a very sound case for this approach, and these are the reasons which have persuaded us, in the light of our discussions with other parties in the House, to reach this conclusion.

Mr, Frank Hooley: Is it the case that, in the event of perjury or baseless allegation, the person so behaving lays himself open to contempt of the House?

The Prime Minister: I understand that it could be, though I suppose that it depends on the specific case.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: My right hon. Friend has made a strong case for having the Committee's proceedings generally in private and for not having the Press there. But there have been cases where a Select Committee has considered that a subject may be quite a tricky one and the Press has not been allowed to attend, but, when witnesses have appeared, hon. Members have been permitted to come along to hear the cross-examination and to follow the proceedings. What reason is there on this occasion for banning hon. Members from attending the Committee when witnesses are before the Committee and cross-examination is taking place, while excluding the Press?

The Prime Minister: I leave my right hon. Friend to consider the matter himself. But, as in the case of the Committee of Privileges, in practice no hon. Member has attended such a Committee during its proceedings. It seems proper that we should follow that precedent in what is happening here, and I think that that will appeal to most hon. Members in the House when they think about the matter.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: My right hon. Friend referred, in his arguments about having this Committee meeting in secret, to the fact that we as Members of Parliament are subject to having our names in the Press on countless other issues and that to some extent we would be likely to suffer more if we were involved. Will he also accept that councillors, too, are in public life and that, therefore, to that extent the argument carries with them just as it does with Members of Parliament, especially if those councillors are well-known public

names? Will my right hon. Friend also comment on the fact that yesterday it was announced that 16 workers at the British Steel Corporation are to be charged with corruption? Will not they, their families and their relatives be subject to the same problems as any Member of Parliament who represents these ordinary people who are subjected to the constraints of the court?

The Prime Minister: I think that the answer to that is "No". I am not a lawyer but, as I understand the rules of evidence—and I said so earlier today—they are very carefully drawn in terms of what may be advanced in court and what may be admitted in court. This is not the case with a Select Committee of this kind. I am willing to give way to any hon. Member who knows the law better than I do. But it is oven to anyone to come to the Select Committee if he wishes to do so and it is sitting in public and to make accusations of the most scurrilous nature—all of us have had such accusations made against us—without any protection at all. We have already had such an example in connection with this case. I see no reason why those who are apparently guiltless of any offence should, either for reasons of malice or in any other way, have their names broadcast in the Press before the Committee has had a chance to consider the answer and then to publish the full facts. Then the House and the country will have the full position before them. That seems to be the right way to handle this matter.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

The Prime Minister: I do not think that we should be debating this matter. I doubt whether there is much more information that I can give to the House. Indeed, I have already reached the end of my speech. I dare say that those who disagree will want to advance different arguments. However, I will give way to the Leader of the Liberal Party, as he has tabled an amendment.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister explain why he takes a different view when it comes to publication of the evidence? He has rightly given the Committee discretion so that it may delete that which is malicious, trivial or without


substance. Ought not he to give the Committee the same discretion whether to investigate in private first and to meet in public later?

The Prime Minister: Obviously the Committee could have such a power. We considered this matter, too. On balance, we thought that it was as well to give the Committee a direction from the House that it should sit in private, provided that it published all the relevant evidence at the end, rather than that it should decide one day to sit in private and another day to sit in public. We think that it is better to do it in this way all the way through. I do not think that there is a great issue of principle here about the Committee's deciding whether it wishes to sit in public or not. But, on balance, we think it better that there should be one coherent approach to it throughout the whole of the Committee's deliberations.
It is our desire that the Committee should receive and consider its evidence frankly and without any inhibition. Let it remain private until the Committee has completed its work, and then let all the evidence, oral and documentary, which is relevant to the inquiry be openly published for all to see. By this method, in our view, the House and the country will be able to form a complete, impartial and fair judgment on this unhappy affair, and justice will be done to those who have improperly involved themselves, but, just as important, justice will also be done to those whose names have been or may be baselessly and scurrilously bandied about.

3.56 p.m.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: When the Prime Minister announced his provisional decision to set up a Select Committee to consider this matter, he undertook to consult the other parties in the House. He has done so, and I am very grateful to him for it. I should now like to explain in my own words why, in general, although this is a House of Commons matter, the Opposition support a great deal of what he says and his broad conclusions.
It has involved a great deal of study, because a small amount of conclusion often involves a great deal of preceding study. There are many other cases to

consider, and many more matters such as the blue-covered Salmon Report of 1966 as well as the red-covered Salmon Report of 1976 to be taken into account.
The purpose of the inquiry is, of course, to ensure that the high standards which are expected of a Member of Parliament are upheld and that thereby we retain public confidence in Parliament as a whole. This means that, from time to time, we have the distasteful task of inquiring into cases about which there is some public disquiet. We have this task in common with other members of other professions, and we have to find the best way of carrying it out.
I agree with the Prime Minister in his choice of a Select Committee as a proper vehicle for this inquiry. He quoted from the blue-covered Salmon Report that we should not set up a tribunal of inquiry except where there was very grave public disquiet and public lack of confidence. I do not believe that that is so in this case.
The right hon. Gentleman has chosen, I believe rightly, very wide terms of reference for this Select Committee. I have been through as many of the other Select Committee Reports as I could manage to read during the weekend, and I can find none comparable in the breadth of its terms of reference with this one. Most of them have referred to single specific instances which have been thoroughly investigated by the Committee concerned. But they have been specific. They have referred to existing Members of the House. I understand that this resolution may go wider and take into account those who were previously Members of this House. This is the only resolution that I have been able to find which is so wide in its terms of reference, and it means that it takes on some of the character of an inquisitorial proceeding in the same way as a tribunal of inquiry is an inquisitorial proceeding. That means that we have to take special care to protect those who are innocent, because by its nature an inquisitorial proceeding is rather alien to our laws of justice in this country.
The blue-covered Salmon Report pointed out that it is a quite different procedure from any in a court, in regard to which there have been previous inquiries, and where specific allegations are put down in writing. The person accused knows exactly what the allegations are,


and depositions are taken from witnesses. There are two sides, with either prosecutor and defendant or plaintiff and defendant.
There is nothing of this kind in a tribunal or in a Select Committee proceeding. It is an inquisitorial proceeding in which allegations emerge as the inquiry goes on. This renders it specially liable to hurt the innocent person—and in particular, if there is a long time elapsing between the allegation and the conclusion, the reputation of the innocent person may never recover. I believe that this puts a very special duty on us to ensure that, while all the relevant evidence is published, no one is subjected needlessly to injustice.
This brings me immediately to the point about the publication of evidence, and to the particular motion on the Order Paper, which is in rather strange wording and not easy to understand. I believe that the best way to achieve these two aims—namely, to bring out all the relevant evidence but to protect the person who is innocent—is to see that every single bit of evidence is published at the time the finding is made by the Select Committee. If by any chance there is then some evidence which goes against a person who is innocent, at least there is the immediate antidote of the finding of the Select Committee.
It is not possible always to have 100 per cent. protection for the innocent in carrying out an inquiry of this kind, but we must make the protection as absolute as possible. This has been done in many past cases. I have been through the Allighan case and all through the Boothby case. Those were single cases. The evidence in the Boothby case ran to some 290 pages. Every single bit was published. The evidence in the Allighan case ran to 122 pages. Every single bit was published. There has been no question about the publication of all relevant facts.
There may from time to time have been discussions about what the House did concerning those relevants facts, but on the whole there has been no criticism that the relevant facts have ever been withheld. Every single thing has been published. How can there be a cover-up when every single bit is published? It is all published and it is all available

for the House to consider when it comes to debate the matter, and it is the House that decides. It is not a Select Committee.
I now turn to what I believe is a misunderstanding which has arisen from the wording in the Order Paper concerning publication. What I think the words mean, and are intended to mean, is that all oral and documentary evidence shall be published in as much as it is proper evidence. Most of us would not wish to consider improper or irrelevant evidence, because it could only be prejudicial.

Mr. Skinner: Mr. Skinner rose—

Mrs. Thatcher: May I just finish? I recognise that the hon. Gentleman feels very strongly about this. So do I. If we look at the reports, we find that all the evidence has been published. I remember only one case where an hon. Member has moved concerning suppression of evidence. That case was taken to the Committee of Privileges. It was a very long time ago. That is why I think it is important to have all the evidence published. For my part, I should be very happy to stand by the normal rules relating to Select Committees.
I notice that the Prime Minister said that the word "inadmissible" is not understood in a parliamentary sense. I believe, with respect, that that is not quite right. I believe that it is understood. I spent some time over the weekend learning a great deal from "Erskine May".

Mr. Skinner: Mr. Skinner rose—

Mrs. Thatcher: May I read out the appropriate paragraph relating to the publication of minutes of evidence by Select Committees? I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Skinner: I appreciate the right hon. Lady's point, but does she understand that the crucial point here is not that we must satisfy hon. Members? The people we have to satisfy are the millions who elect us and put us into this place. Indeed, we also have to satisfy those who have been involved in Select Committees dealing with other matters.
Does the right hon. Lady know, for instance, that Alan Grimshaw, one of the people partly responsible for the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries


making an investigation of the National Coal Board's buying of roof supports and so on, is extremely aggrieved at the result of that investigation? The Select Committee did not publish all the evidence which he believed—as distinct from the Committee's view—should have been published. That is the point at issue. Although the House may be happy that all its Members have been safeguarded, the real question is whether a Select Committee in this form, if it decides not to publish all the evidence, can then satisfy all the people outside.

Mrs. Thatcher: I understand that the direction here relates to all "relevant" evidence, that is to say, all evidence that is relevant. I believe that the next words on the Order Paper,
and such as may fairly be taken into account
really mean all evidence that is admissible. But in deciding what those words mean, I believe that the proper authority is "Erskine May" other than the Officers of the House. May I read out the rules relating to the publication of minutes of evidence of Select Committees? On page 650 "Erskine May" goes into what is proper and also deals with what is "inadmissible". That is why I think it is a term understood in the House. It says:
If a question, which, on being objected to, is decided to be improper or inadmissible, has already been inserted in the minutes, the question is expunged.
It is, therefore, expunged in terms of existing practice if it is improper or inadmissible—and people do not want improper or inadmissible details to be in the evidence. "Erskine May" then goes on to say:
Other matters which have been expunged by the order of the committee have included answers which, properly speaking, were not evidence and ought not to have been received as such; part of, or certain words in, a witness's evidence; questions and answers relating to a case, of which the witness subsequently admitted he had no personal knowledge"—
and so on. In other words, all evidence which is proper and relevant has to be published, I understand, according to the motion before the House. If that is not so, then most of us would be prepared to say that, provided it is published absolutely at the end, when the findings come out, all evidence should be published if any case is to be raised concerning the

suppression of evidence. I believe that it is more important to get it all out—but to have none of it coming out until the findings are made—than it is to risk any question about suppression of evidence. But I understand the wording on the Order Paper to mean—and I hope that the advice we shall get is that it means that the Select Committee will take it to mean—all evidence which is relevant and admissible—

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York) rose—

Mrs. Thatcher: —and that if it is not admissible it ought to be stopped. It sometimes is—as the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), who is a lawyer, well knows—but it is not always easy to stop it before it has come out and some damage has been done.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. I think, with respect, that there is a difference between what "Erskine May" calls inadmissible and the wording used in the motion, which is
upon consideration … shall appear to be relevant".
What is inadmissible may be, for example, abuse which may not be regarded as orderly in the House and which would be similarly inadmissible in a Select Committee. But it may be that a Select Committee would think that a false allegation against an innocent Member of the House is irrelevant to its general consideration whether some people were guilty of contempt of the House. The Select Committee may think that it would be better in the circumstances not to have such evidence at all. In the one case it would fall within the terms of the motion and would be strictly admissible according to the "Erskine May" test.
I agree with the right hon. Lady's general approach to the problem, and would be anxious to follow her line in dealing with the evidence. I think it is very important, therefore, that we should get it right here and now and not leave it to the Select Committee to decide according to its own test.

Mrs. Thatcher: I do not believe that false allegations against hon. Members which are irrelevant should be published. It is far better to have them published at


the end of the day than have the proceedings in public or published in the Press all along. I believe that this means what I believe it to mean and I hope it will be made clear to the Select Committee what the House means. All the evidence put forward, if inadmissible in the ordinary usage of the term, should be stopped at the point given or expunged from the record. As we have inquisitorial proceedings here, we can do that.
I believe that the right attitude to take is that all the evidence should be published at the time of the findings, so that there is no great gap between the allegations being made and the findings being given. Then there is no question of a cover-up of any kind. If that is done, I believe that we shall have the full facts put before the House and it is the House, not the Select Committee, which decides what is to be done on the findings.

Mr. Leo Abse: The right hon. Lady has referred to the blue-covered book of Lord Salmon, but only in passing to the red-covered book. In the latter, Lord Salmon, who is fully seized of the facts to come before the Select Committee, and certainly of the evidence which has precipitated this debate today, came to the conclusion, for reasons he has given, including problems about inadmissibility of evidence, that the Select Committee was an unsuitable vehicle. He recommended that every hon. Member should be placed in the same position as a member of the public before the law in a criminal trial. Why has the right hon. Lady not referred to the recommendation specifically made by Lord Salmon that a Select Committee of this kind is highly unsuitable to deal with these matters which we are trying to lay upon them?

Mrs. Thatcher: With due respect to the hon. Gentleman—and I recognise that he is a distinguished lawyer—only a Select Committee can inquire into matters of contempt of this House. No tribunal or other body can do it. The other matter into which the Select Committee is to inquire is whether the standards of conduct fall below those expected of hon. Members. This cannot be a trial, or a criminal trial, and the Prime Minister referred to this matter early on. My understanding is that either before or after the Select Committee has reported, the matter

referred to in Lord Salmon's red-covered Report, whether there should be a change of law, must be put through this House in the proper way with proper consideration. That is quite separate from what we are doing now. We do no service to anyone to confuse these two issues.
I shall address a few words to an amendment which I think will be moved later about whether the Select Committee should have the right to go in and out of public proceedings. I do not think the Select Committee should be given that discretion at this moment. There will be, at the beginning, quite a number of allegations which come before the Select Committee, and some evidence will be heard. If the Select Committee is given the power to go into public proceedings at its own discretion, one thing will be certain—the public will not have all the evidence at the same time. It will have some evidence and it will not have other evidence, and therefore it cannot have the means of judging the whole thing. Immediately there are two sorts of evidence created—one sort which is published at the end with the findings and one sort which is published at the time the allegation is put and the hearing conducted. That would lead to confusion, and would create suspicion, not allay it. It would be quite wrong to give such discretion at this time.
On the ordinary procedure of Select Committees, followed in the Boothby case, if the Committee wants extra powers it can come back to the House and ask for them. In the Boothby case, Lord Boothby was given the right to appear or be represented by counsel and the Select Committee was given the right to hear counsel. The Committee had thought that its powers were not enough, so it came back to the House, put its case and got the powers it needed.
None of use knows, apart from the Attorney-General, what is contained in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's files, and none of us knows the allegations which will come before the Committee. But if, after several weeks, the Committee wishes or thinks it proper that some of the proceedings should be held in public, the correct and appropriate thing to do is for the Committee to make such a resolution, come back to the House and seek further powers. Then the decision


whether some of the evidence should be in public and some in private rests with the House. There is nothing in the Committee proedures to preclude that from happening, and it is the right way to go about it.

Mr. Eric Ogden: In her desire to protect every Member of this House, the right hon. Lady spoke of consideration being given for six or seven weeks or more. But has she thought that no one can prevent hon. Members or the Press from waiting in the corridors outside the Committee Room to see who goes in and out? Inevitably there will be some conjecture about who goes in and for what purpose. If the Committee cannot call for factual evidence from one hon. Member to clear his name, there is a danger that anyone called to the Committee will have the stigma, or at least the suspicion, attaching to his or her name. If the Committee could hear this evidence in public his name would be cleared.

Mrs. Thatcher: That is quite different from any allegation being published. I am not certain about the parliamentary law relating to reporting comings and goings in corridors of the House. There have been privilege cases about reporting what goes on in parts of the House which are not the Chamber, and other cases may be referred to the Committee of Privileges. I believe that the mode of operating which the Minister has put forward is, indeed, the best one.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: But is there not a practical difficulty if, as the right hon. Lady has suggested, the Select Committee comes back to the House and asks for discretion to sit in public? It would have to disclose to the House the reasons why it wished to sit in public and that would raise all kinds of problems. If it had the discretion from the start it could exercise that discretion.

Mrs. Thatcher: It is not right to give a discretion to the Select Committee to hear part of the evidence in public and part in private. That ensures that there are two different sorts of evidence and I think that would create suspicion at the outset.
The procedure which we followed in the Boothby and Allighan cases was that

the hearings were in private, but the public knew everything at the end because everything was published. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) cannot say that there is any cover-up when every word of the evidence is published, because there is no cover-up at all.
I have given my views on what it means, what I believe it should mean, could mean and will be intended to mean. It is far better that we should proceed in this way than by the only alternative, which is for allegations to be published one by one with a very long time between the allegations being made and the findings being published. This is the worst of all possible worlds.

Mr. Alan Clark: There are three categories of evidence and they diminish in significance. First, there is "all the evidence", which my right hon. Friend says she favours publishing—and I agree with her. Secondly, there is "all the admissible evidence" covered by the definition in "Eskine May" which my right hon. Friend read out. Thirdly, there is a still smaller category, which the Prime Minister mentioned, which is "all the relevant evidence"—which means the evidence considered relevant by the subjective tests of the Committee. Which of these groups of evidence does my right hon. Friend favour publishing?

Mrs. Thatcher: The only evidence is evidence which is related to the case. All the rest is not evidence; it is just scurrilous gossip and rumour. The only evidence, by the nature of the word, is evidence relating to the matter which is before the Select Committee. I hope that there will never be any question of using the Select Committee as a means of propounding gossip or scurrilous rumour, if that is what it is, or as a means of seeing that such gossip is published and uttered beyond the House.
If one has any confidence in a Select Committee surely one can trust it to publish all the evidence that truly is evidence and to make an objective assessment. If we do not have that confidence there is no point in setting up the Select Committee.
I am sorry that I have taken longer than the Prime Minister, but at least I have been supporting him this time.


I believe that what he proposes is the right way to go about this matter, and I hope that the Select Committee will be speeded on its way and will get down to what is for it a very difficult task.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Since my hon. Friends disagree with the view taken by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in one particular matter, I should like to set out first what I think the Select Committee should do, or how it should proceed.
A great deal has been said on both sides today by both right hon. Members to indicate that one of their chief concerns, if not their chief concern, is to protect the innocent. Of course, it is a matter of fine balance as to how that is to be achieved and how it is to be set against the other factor which must surely weigh equally heavily with them, and that is that the public should see that justice has been achieved.
Justice achieved in secret is very rarely seen to be justice. Our courts meet in public. Many of the arguments used by the Prime Minister today were a justification for courts sitting in secret and publishing all their evidence and their findings later because then the nasty allegations can be published together with the findings.

The Prime Minister: No. that is quite wrong. We are dealing with an entirely different matter. A court presumably gives its own findings and its own verdict. I do not know whether the Select Committee will produce findings. It is entitled to do so if it wishes, but the verdict on these issues will be made in this House, in public, after we have read the allegations and the answers. There is nothing here to cover up.

Mr. Hooson: In the proposed terms of reference the Prime Minister has asked the Committee to make recommendations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] It is to report to the House and presumably that will include making representations.
It is important for this matter to be developed further. When the British Medical Association considers allegations against doctors, once the original evidence has been sifted, the allegations are heard in public. That is a very serious

matter for a doctor, but because the matter is handled in public the public are reassured.
Let me set out what we think is the right procedure for the Committee to adopt. As Lord Salmon said in his red-covered Report, there are serious deficiencies in the procedure, whatever the procedure we use. Lord Salmon said:
With the most genuine respect to the Committee of Privileges and the Select Committee on Members' Interests, we do not consider that they provide an investigative machinery comparable to that of a police investigation. We have had frequent occasion to comment on the complexity of investigations into serious corruption, and the special expertise that is necessary for this type of inquiry … Since the bribery of a Member of Parliament acting in his parliamentary capacity does not constitute an offence known to the criminal law, it appears to us that the very locus of the police in respect of such matters must he in doubt.
Let me suggest, therefore, what should be the proper procedure for the Committee.
First, it has to investigate the matter. No doubt it will invite evidence in written statements to be made to the Committee. Maybe oral statements will be made to it. At that stage I agree with the Prime Minister. Individual Members of the House and any outside witnesses should be protected, and at that stage I think the proceedings of the Committee should be entirely in private.
Surely the equivalent of this is the police investigation or the original inquiry of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The DPP has much evidence presented to him which is never revealed to the public because he discards it, perhaps because he regards it as unreliable. The same applies with the early investigation of any disciplinary tribunal in any profession.
However, the Committee having gone through that matter, and having sifted all the evidence, I and my right hon. and hon. Friends believe that if there is a substantial case against any Member of the House the Committee should have discretion to have the hearing thereafter in public. The Select Committee would, as it should, apply very strict rules to what is admissible and relevant. It would be concerned to ensure that scurrilous rumours and that kind of thing were not


made the foundation of charges. There must be more substance to them than that.
But let us suppose that the Committee finds the substance is there. Surely at that stage it should be entitled to do what is done in a Board of Trade inquiry into a public company and reduce what is found to be a substantive case into writing, to make a précis, which is presented to whoever is involved. Then, if it wishes, I think the Committee could hear that evidence in public. The Member should be entitled to give and should give evidence in public in rebuttal of that.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): The hon. and learned Member is worrying me in the light of the discussions that took place last week. Surely in his statement of 19th October the Attorney-General made it abundantly clear that he had reached the conclusion, with which the Solicitor-General and I concur, that for persons within the jurisdiction of the court there are not sufficient grounds to merit the commencement of any further prosecutions or continued inquiry into the possibility of obtaining further evidence of criminal offences.
The hon. and learned Member has talked about building up a case. We are not talking about that. We are talking about whether in this instance there is contempt of the House, or whether there was conduct which was inconsistent with the standard that the House is entitled to expect from its Members. It does an ill service to this House in the eyes of persons outside to suggest that there is a cover-up, because otherwise hon. Members would go before the courts on criminal charges. That has not happened.

Mr. Hooson: I think that the Home Secretary has misunderstood me. Of course there are two issues into which the Committee must inquire. The first is whether the conduct or activities amounted to contempt of the House, and the second is whether the activities of any Members of Parliament were inconsistent with the standards which the House was entitled to expect of them. These are the matters into which the House must inquire.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I am most grateful to the hon. and learned Member for giving way. He is

speaking of an inquiry into the conduct and activities of hon. Members which should consider whether any such conduct or activities amounted to a contempt of the House or was inconsistent with the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its Members. Is he aware that this inquiry is confined to matters in connection with the affairs of Mr. J. G. L. Poulson?
As the hon. and learned Member speaks for the Liberal Party, will he tell the House publicly and openly why in his view this motion should exclude the activities of the previous leader of his party who was condemned by an inquiry conducted by an inspector of the Department of Trade and Industry?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. Mr. Speaker has already ruled on the question of imputations against individual hon. Members. They are not in order.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has just recommended to the House that there should be a general inquiry. He has not recommended the deletion from the motion of the words:
in connection with the affairs of Mr. J. G. L. Poulson".
I am entitled to ask him why he does not carry his recommendation to its logical conclusion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall leave the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) to answer that, but I must draw attention to the fact that Mr. Speaker ruled earlier that it is in order for hon. Members to refer to the circumstances attending the inquiry, but that it would not be in order to make allegations against individual Members. This would prejudge the Committee's findings and recommendations.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I have not made any allegation against any hon. Member. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has just recommended that the House should conduct an investigation into the conduct and activities of Members of this House to consider whether such conduct or activities amounted to a contempt of the House or was inconsistent with the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its Members—this is not confined to criminal activities—and


I am asking why he thinks it right that such an investigation should be so constricted that it excludes the ex-leader of his party. I think that I am entitled to a reply to that question.

Mr. Hooson: That scurrilous interruption is probably the most powerful argument yet advanced in favour of the Prime Minister's proposal. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) should have heeded what his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said on this matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must draw the attention of the House to the first paragraph of the motion, which refers specifically to activities
in connection with the affairs of Mr. J. G. L. Poulson".

The Prime Minister: The exchange we have just heard illustrates exactly the point which was very much in our minds. Trial by newspaper took place—the consequences are not of concern to us—and I am most anxious to see that no innocent hon. Members suffer the same fate.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I take it that the Prime Minister was purporting to intervene on a point of order. I have accused no one of anything.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understood the Prime Minister to be intervening in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery.

Mr. Hooson: It is obvious that I should be confident that under the procedure I propose the public would regard the evidence of the hon. Member for Tiverton as worthless.
I wish to outline the important reasons why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I believe that the inquiry into these matters should be held partly in public. The reason we are having this procedure is that hon. Members are not subject to the criminal law in regard to certain aspects of their behaviour. I remind the House of the article in the Bill of Rights which says that the freedom of speech in debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament. We have here a privilege applied to hon.
Members in the fulfilment of their functions as hon. Members.

Mr. John Peyton: I hope that the hon. and learned Member will clear up doubts which he may have created by what he has just said. I understood him to say that there were some sections of the criminal law to which hon. Members were not amenable. If he did say that, to which sections was he referring?

Mr. Hooson: The Prevention of Corruption Act, for example, makes it an offence for officials, councillors and others to do certain things which are not offences as far as hon. Members fulfilling their parliamentary functions are concerned.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) please educate the media? The whole business of the immunity conferred by the Bill of Rights is a red herring since the Prevention of Corruption Act does not apply to Parliament or to the administration of any of our activities in any event. Even if the Bill had never been passed, no hon. Member could have been prosecuted for any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act appertaining to his parliamentary or any other duties.

Mr. Hooson: We are concerned with the protection of hon. Members and the privilege of an hon. Member in carrying out his functions in Parliament. Hon. Members hold this privilege on behalf of the people they represent. That is why we have freedom of speech in the House. It is not a personal privilege in the true sense. We hold it in a fiduciary capacity and it is there to ensure that there is no restriction on an hon. Member's ability to speak out in the House and in any proceedings of Parliament. It is a principle conceived of our constitutional law. It is the principle that an hon. Member should be able to utter without restraint and be safeguarded by means of privilege. What is safeguarded by this privilege is the public interest. The purpose of our privilege is to preserve and enlarge the freedom within the House to speak without restraint. I ask, therefore, why it is proposed to have an entirely private inquiry in this case.
Let us assume that an hon. Member had received sums of money which would, were he not an hon. Member, be


regarded as a bribe. As an hon. Member he would not have to face criminal charges, but if he were not an hon. Member there would be a charge and the trial would be held in public in the courts.
Parliament heeded the criticism that the police should not be allowed to deal in private with complaints made against them. The House has introduced a new procedure to deal with this. There is a great danger of the public thinking that double standards are being applied by the House.
I agree that the investigatory phase of the Committee's work should be entirely in private. If there is a prima facie case of a contempt of the House or of conduct which is inconsistent with the standards which the House is entitled to expect, surely it would be in the interests of justice for the individual involved, and in the public interest, for the matter to be discussed in public.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Surely, it will come out in the House when the Committee reports. If there is a case to answer, the House will have an opportunity to study the evidence and read the report. No one will be protected. There will be no cover-up of any heinous crime. If anybody has done anything wrong, it will come out. But if a man is to have all the Committee sittings listened to in public, and perhaps reported in the Press, the case may well be prejudged and, when the House finally comes to look at it, we shall be in a difficult position.

Mr. Hooson: I have not suggested that every Committee sitting should be in public. I said that the first function of the Committee should be to sift the evidence and decide whether there is any substance in it, and, of course, that evidence must be admissible and relevant. But it is in the interests of any hon. Member against whom a prima facie case is made and who has an answer to it, that at that stage he should be able to give his answer in public.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Is the hon. and learned Member saying that he would like the Committee to sift all the evidence, presumably having heard it, and then go back to the beginning again to see what constitutes a prima facie case?

How does he expect any progress to be made?

Mr. Hooson: The procedure of sifting evidence is gone through in many places in our country at present. The Director of Public Prosecutions does it to find out whether there is a prima facie case.
It is important to consider the practical implications of the course which the Government have decided upon here. The Press, for example, already has a great deal of evidence. The transcripts of the public hearings in the bankruptcy proceedings must already be in the hands of a great number of newspapers.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: What about London and County Securities?

Mr. Hooson: The Press could refer to any piece of that evidence at any time when the Committee was sitting. If newspapers knew that a person who had given evidence in the bankruptcy proceedings was called before the Select Committee, they could say what he had said in the bankruptcy proceedings without risk of any action. Also, there are the transcripts of evidence given by various witnesses in the different trials which involved Poulson. They could be referred to at any time.
Therefore, by their proposal that the sittings of the Committee should be entirely in private the Government are risking publication by the Press at various times of extracts of evidence already given.

The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): Would the hon. and learned Gentleman give the House an assurance that if, as is proposed, he becomes a member of the Select Committee, he will ensure in the debate which follows the report that nothing which ought to be brought to the attention of the House in the way of evidence, written or oral, will fail to be brought to the attention of the House?

Mr. Hooson: I assure the Attorney-General that if I were to become a member of the Select Committee it would be my hope that the Committee would come to a unanimous conclusion and that each member of the Committee would put before the House what the


Committee agreed should be put before the House.
We are in danger here of failing to appreciate the atmosphere of mounting public suspicion of the House.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hooson: Let us consider the history of the matter. In 1972—the Prime Minister has already adverted to this—certain events took place which, I assume, will be placed before the Committee, and these were known to some hon. Members and to members of the Government at that time. The matter became public with allegations during the Poulson bankruptcy proceedings. Let it be remembered that those proceedings were held in public, or at least part of them were. Had allegations not been made, would these investigations ever have taken place?
It is right to observe in passing that a distinguished member of the Bar, Mr. Muir Hunter, was called before the Bar Council when he was actually engaged in the middle of the case to answer for his own conduct in those bankruptcy proceedings. He was totally exonerated, but that event caused extreme disquiet among members of the Bar, and, so far as I am aware, Mr. Muir Hunter is the only counsel ever to be called to answer for his conduct while he was still conducting a case.
It is four years now from the time when the letters referred to were found. There has been no action yet on the Salmon Commission's revelations and the loopholes in our law and procedures. Should we be having this debate today and would a Select Committee be set up were it not for the fact that the Observer published its articles?

The Prime Minister: With respect, that question should be answered at once, and the answer is "Yes, we should". The Attorney-General had the information—naturally, he kept the information, because there is a distinction between the Government and the Attorney-General—but it was made clear by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), when he was Prime Minister, that the House would return to this matter when the question of prosecutions had been concluded. We have done that within 10 days of the Attorney-General giving his

view on the matter, and I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not spread that calumny any further. It did not require the Observer to bring the matter forward or to force the Attorney-General to bring it to the notice of the Government.

Mr. Hooson: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that statement, but he himself partly produced that thought in the minds of many people when he said in the House the day after the Attorney-General's Written Answer:
… it may be as well to focus on the practice for the future rather than to re-run the past. …".—[Official Report, 20th October 1976; Vol. 917, c. 1449.]
The Prime Minister used those words—such things can easily be said, and one does not always fully intend the meaning attached to them—and I think that he himself contributed to the impression that—

The Prime Minister: I wish to make clear that because the Lord President was ill I received notice of the Private Notice Question. I was then on my way back in a motor car from opening the Motor Show. I did not actually see the papers until after 2 o'clock on that day, and I gave as much of an answer as I could. I said that I wanted to reserve my position on whether the matter should go to the Committee of Privileges. Having studied the matter further, after our exchanges in the House I returned to the House immediately the next day and stated what I thought the right conclusions were. I had by that time seen all the papers, and it was only then that I saw in full some of the letters which had passed.

Mr. Hooson: I readily accept from the Prime Minister that on the occasion when he made his first statement he had not given the matter the mature consideration which he clearly had given it by the time he made his second statement. But it is important to return to the basic question.
The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have rightly said that they are concerned to protect the innocent. But by recommending the procedure that the Committee shall meet only in private, they are, I suggest, again creating suspicion where no suspicion need exist. I am sure that that is so in the public


mind, and I am suggesting that it is possible to protect the innocent by a different kind of procedure. I think it right that the Committee should have a discretion to sit in public if the public interest and the interests of justice require it to do so. It should have that inherent discretion from the start.
One of the basic tenets of liberty is that there shall be liberty to know. We live in a mature democracy. Our democracy is used to having evidence published in the newspapers—evidence which is later rejected, for example, by juries. If there be a prima facie case established to the satisfaction of the Committee, at that stage it will be in the interests of the country as a whole that the Committee shall have the right to sit in public.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The first point to which I should like to refer is the matter that has just been discussed by the spokesman for the Liberal Party, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. That is whether the Government, through the Attorney-General, would have taken any action on this matter. I want to be fair to the Government on this specific point—although I want to be fair in any case—and, perhaps more precisely, to the Attorney-General.
About a year ago a letter was sent to me in reply to a letter that I had sent to the Attorney-General in which I had raised the fundamental question regarding not the whole Poulson activities but a certain area of them. Much to the chagrin of the Opposition—I am not sure whether they included the Liberals—the Attorney-General replied to me to the effect that the matter was still continuing and that certain decisions would have to be made later. Therefore, it would be wrong of me to assume at the outset that the Government had no intention of returning to this matter. Indeed, the Attorney-General made that point to me in his letter. Many hon. Members were not terribly happy about that. However, the Attorney-General was right to reply to me in that strain.
It can be argued—I put it not higher than that—that the Government would have brought this matter to the House for it to be dealt with. It is not easy

to talk about the general view outside this place. However, let me put it like this. I get the impression that most people outside Parliament, who start by being a little cynical about politicians, would argue that what we seemed to be doing was evading the issue because it affected Members of Parliament. That may or may not be true. However, I am fairly certain that that was the impression of many people to whom I speak, who have never been to this place and are not terribly anxious to come and have a look at it, but who, nevertheless, want to ensure that a Government of a certain political colour is in being. Today, therefore, we debate this matter against that background.
It is true that we here get a different conception about how things should be dealt with because our environment, both in the Chamber and in places outside it in the House of Commons and thereabouts, is different from that in which our constituents normally live. That is not to say that I know too much about the voters who put the Tories in this place. Of course that is not so. I am talking principally about those who are, roughly, like me. Those are the people who concern me.
There are literally millions of them. There are millions of constituents who, day in and day out, want to support a Socialist Government. On occasions they get the opportunity, and in varying degrees they support a Socialist Government. I tend to get the impression that they are unhappy about what is taking place. For the life of me, I cannot see why the setting up of a public tribunal was not proposed, a tribunal in which the whole of this dirty washing—if it is dirty washing—could have been hung out to dry.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Skinner: Well, I hesitate to do so—but go on.

Mr. Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that what we are proposing to do here, in bringing this matter out in public on a report with all the evidence, is something that is not done by many trade unions? When they bring their own members before them, they do not


even present a report. They simply present a verdict.

Mr. Skinner: If people involved in a trade union get involved in some difficulty with their members which is a matter purely for the trade union, they will deal with it in that way. What we are talking about is something entirely different. If a member of a trade union, an officer or a shop steward, were alleged to have been involved in some area of corruption or bribery, he would not be dealt with by the shop stewards' council or whatever it is. He would be dealt with by the courts of law.
When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was speaking, I referred to the 16 British Steel Corporation workers who, according to the Sunday Mirror of yesterday, have been charged with corruption arising out of something that has happened at the British Steel Corporation. I do not know the precise allegations. In many ways, I do not need to care too much about them. However, one thing I know is that those 16 people will go through a process that is completely different from the process that Members of Parliament—irrespective of whether they are involved in this matter—would go through.
Therefore, by and large, many people take the view that this particular incident, like many others that arise in this place, suggests that Members of Parliament are above the law. It may be argued by all the lawyers in this place—no doubt they will so argue very forcibly—that that is not true and that it is a generalisation that may easily be challenged.

Mr. Abse: On the contrary, no lawyer worth his salt would argue that. The whole point is that there is an area of law in which the Member of Parliament and those who attempt to corrupt him, in particular circumstances, cannot be brought before the courts, so there is no such argument. I hope to have an opportunity of developing that matter later.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, but the point I am making is that our constituents generally tend to take the view or to get the impression that Members of Parlament are above the law. That is why what we should have done in this case was to say to the public generally "Because there is a great deal of cynicism, because there is this constant reference to Members of

Parliament being above the law and because some newspapers write editorials which make that suggestion in slogan form—because of all that we shall go one stage further and ensure that we use a sledgehammer to crack a nut." That is what we should be doing, instead of giving the impression that we are posturing as an elite all the time and that we are just a shade better than the ordinary man in the street.
On this occasion there can be no argument about a public inquiry costing any more. We are constantly told that everything must be looked at in terms of public expenditure. I cannot see that this would affect any area of finance. I suppose that it could be argued that it would be cheaper to hold it publicly anyway.
Another important point concerns the terms of the motion. This point has been referred to by the Liberal spokesman, who said that the terms were too narrow. Immediately, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the hon. and learned Gentleman was anxious to make that point, you had to intervene to prevent another hon. Member from pointing out what would happen if the terms were broadened generally. However, I am concerned about the precise definition.
I want to know what will happen in relation to the Poulson subsidiaries. John Poulson always argued that the subsidiaries were not his companies, but a lot of the shares were owned by him or his family through his wife. Therefore, I want to know from the Government that these companies, such as ITCS—the company that did the international trade and international business—Open System Buildings and Construction Promotions, are all areas into which the Select Committee will delve. We do not want to get into a situation in which it is said, "This is not the main company". I noticed that my right hon. Friend nodded in assent. It seems that at least we shall have some attempt made to investigate these matters a little beyond the narrow area of Poulson's own architectural company.
Even so, we can still run into difficulties. What happens when it has been established that certain of the subsidiaries have been involved in certain activities and various matters need to be examined further? What happens when someone


demands that Mr. Kenneth Williams, the Medical Director of Vickers, should be brought before the Committee to fulfil the requirements of a thorough and searching investigation into certain aspects of ITCS? What happens when that course is taken regarding the building company in Gozo?
Kenneth Williams, according to the Attorney-General, was being sought by Scotland Yard in Saudi Arabia a year ago. We were told that our relations with Saudi Arabia this is the impression that has been given—were so weak that we could not persuade the Saudi Arabians to allow Scotland Yard to investigate. I am told that Kenneth Williams is now in France. What attempts will be made to get the man here? I am not referring to a Member but to a man who, according to the Attorney-General's letter of a year ago, would be a prime factor in an attempt to root out some of the affairs that have not been concluded in the Poulson inquiries.
What will happen when the Committee reaches the stage when it is necessary to find Kenneth Williams and to bring him before the court to explain his conduct in the affairs of the Poulson international subsidiary that was involved—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: This is a subject that has quite wide surroundings. Does the hon. Gentleman recall that when the Committee on Un-American Activities under the late and unlamented Senator McCarthy wanted to bring American citizens back to America from this country to testify before the committee, Americans who had not committed any offence against American law, people of all parties in this country took the view that we should not waive our sovereignty to allow that to happen? Whatever views we may take about this case, if the hon. Gentleman were a Saudi Arabian, is he quite sure that he would want a British Select Committee to do what I think both he and I would have agreed an American Senate Committee should be allowed to do in Britain?

Mr. Skinner: The McCarthy attempt to drag people back to America from this country, which he says many people resisted, is different from the case to which I am referring. According to the Attorney-General, Scotland Yard was

attempting to get hold of Kenneth Williams. Apparently it was having some difficulty in finding him. Scotland Yard was interested not in some American senator or a Select Committee but in finding an individual who was wanted. It was suggested that he would be needed at any time if the whole investigation of the Poulson activities were to be concluded in a proper fashion. The point I am making is that it was not a Select Committee that was anxious to fetch him back because of a McCarthy-like witch hunt, but an attempt by Scotland Yard to get him back which was not successful because of various difficulties.
The Select Committee endeavoured to get this little part of this little area of the Poulson activities wound up once and for all.

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend was very fair to me at the beginning of his speech. The duties given to me by the motion are to
attend the Committee so far as the Committee may require to present evidence relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry".
Will my hon. Friend take it from me that I shall seek to nut before the Committee all the material in my possession which appears to be relevant? Does he accept that if the Committee asks me to do anything further—and the motion states
and may give such further assistance to the Committee as may be appropriate"—
I shall do my best to meet its wishes? However, if that involves obtaining for the Committee the evidence of someone who is not within the jurisdiction—namely, someone who is outside the country—I shall have no power to meet such a requirement, although I shall do my best to achieve it.

Mr. Skinner: That outlines the difficulties to which I have referred. Surely that makes it necessary to endeavour to get the matter completely resolved by some other tactic. In the absence of being able to get certain gentlemen to appear before the Committee either inside or outside this country, the Committee will have to use some other tactic to achieve its objective and to allay not merely my fears but the fears of those outside.
There is another matter that worries me about this whole affair. I am pleased


that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is still present to listen to what I have to say. Of course, he might not be terribly concerned about what I say on many other matters, and he might not be concerned in this instance. I regarded the initial announcement by my right hon. Friend with some suspicion. On more than one occasion I heard him refer to the future. Any Socialist worth his salt should be concerned about what we do in the future. He was right on that score, but I think that he concentrated in his initial statement on wanting to do something about the future—this was apparent in the replies he gave to questions from either side of the House—to the detriment of taking immediate action to begin the cleaning up, if there is any cleaning to be done.
I was worried when my right hon. Friend seemed to harp upon that phraseology. It worried me even more when the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition seemed to confirm that point of view in the few remarks she made on 21st October. What makes me more suspicious—I am naturally a suspicious person—is that on the following day, when my right hon. Friend announced that he had managed to get hold of some information that hitherto he had not been made aware of, or had not had the opportunity to see, he was able to put forward the idea of a Select Committee, which, to say the least, was a little different from what he had said the day before.
Strangely enough, this area of collaboration continued. The right hon. Lady said that she had changed her mind as well in the preceding 24 hours. Therefore, they were back together again.
When it comes to the drawing up of the terms of reference for the Committee we see, once again, a convergence of views. My right hon. Friend and the Government Front Bench generally seem to be agreeing with the Opposition Front Bench almost all along the line. We have witnessed that again today. It makes me angry as well as suspicious when I am told that I am expected to continue this collaboration in the Lobby. I am told to vote for the Government in accordance with what the Opposition want. I am sorry, but when it comes to that sort of collaboration I, for one, cannot take part

in it. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that even in matters of this sort he should always be wary of what the Opposition put forward. When the two Front Benches have agreed on a course there are few occasions when that course has been either for the good of the nation generally or, more important, for the good of our party and our party supporters.

Mr. Peter Tapseil: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why something is more important for the Labour Party than it is for the nation?

Mr. Skinner: As I said at the outset, I am motivated more by what concerns the people who sent me here than by the so-called national interest, which can vary from time to time. Sometimes the national interest corresponds with one line of thought and sometimes with another. I am more concerned with advancing the cause of those who want a change in society, so I start from a completely different point from that adopted by the hon. Gentleman.
Why are we debating this motion in relation to Members of Parliament and the élitism which on this occasion surrounds the operation of a Member of Parliament? It stems from the simple proposition that a Member of Parliament, unlike most workers, is able to have his fingers in more than one pie. It all comes back to the general proposition that this whole area of suspicion cannot be eradicated unless we establish that the principle of one man one job should apply to Members of Parliament. The Register of Members' Interests was an advance along those lines.
Without doubt this is a matter of public concern. No doubt the Liberal amendment will command a good deal of support in the House because it means all things to all people. Many motions which can be interpreted in various ways command a lot of support in the House. The Liberal amendment would allow the Select Committee to hear evidence in public if it so wished. I am not sure that the Select Committee would want to do that. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the composition is not exactly like that of any other Select Committee in the proportion of Privy Councillors who are members of it. My view is that it would be likely to continue


to sit in private once it started to do so. If that Liberal amendment is not carried today, the Liberal Member who has been allocated a place on the Committee has only one honourable course, and that is to come off it.
The amendment tabled by my hon. Friends and myself provides specifically that the Select Committee must meet in public. The last secret Committee in the House of Commons was in 1857, and we do not want to go back to that kind of operation. That amendment is unqualified. If it is carried, some of the public's fears will be allayed, but not all, because the only way to allay all fears is by the appointment of a full tribunal of inquiry unconnected with the operation of the House.
The fundamental aspect is that Members of Parliament are seen to he investigating allegations against other Members of Parliament. We have just passed an Act which provides that the investigation of complaints against the police shall not be a matter for the police alone. Yet in this internal investigation we are saying to the public that we can do the job better than anyone else. Any ordinary member of the public who was involved in allegations connected with those being debated today would have to appear before a court of law and to pay whatever penalty the court imposed. That is why I feel that we are making the wrong move. We should have established a tribunal of inquiry from the beginning.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rees: Over the years the House has had the opportunity to appreciate that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is a man of wide attainments and that his character has many facets. Today, perhaps for the first time, he has demonstrated that he has an unswerving regard for the integrity of public life. He has displayed his considerable forensic talents to demonstrate that he has reservations about the procedure that we are being asked to adopt. I hope that he will not take it too personally when I say that I wish he had displayed those same talents in pressing his right hon. Friends for an inquiry into the administration of Clay Cross. He would have done the general public a greater service

than he has done in developing some of the arguments, not entirely relevant, which he has deployed today.
At the end of the day I, too, have certain reservations about the procedure we are being asked to adopt. If we are to appreciate why we are being asked to adopt it, we have to look at the whole case in its context—I agree with the hon. Member for Bolsover that we have to look a little further ahead—and start by asking ourselves why we are being asked to set up this special Committee.
A welter of bad law has been deployed in the debate, and I hope that the House will not feel that I am attempting to add to it. The reason why we are being asked to set up the Committee is that there is a gap in the law. I am in agreement with the hon. Members for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and York (Mr. Lyon) that this is not a question of privilege. It may be peripheral—Article 9 of the Bills of Rights touches on this—but it is not central to the issue. The real point is that neither under the common law nor under statute can Members of Parliament or those who attempt to corrupt them be the subject of a criminal action in the courts.
We might perhaps today debate whether the law should be altered, and I hope that the House will allow me to come on to that, but at the moment the three statutes that bear on this, and the common law, do not touch Members of Parliament in the exercise of their parliamentary duties; nor do they touch those who attempt to corrupt. That is the answer to the hon. Member for Bolsover—it is not élitism. I willingly give way to any hon. and learned Member who wishes to take issue with me on that.
Honourable Members may feel that this is a gap in the law. I do, and so did Lord Salmon and Members who sat on the Committee with him. If we start from that position, I am sure that the whole House will agree that we cannot overlook the case that has been deployed by rumour and in the Observer. I, too, wonder a little whether, if another paper, unsupported by the powerful talents of the hon. Member for Bolsover, had made this case we should have got to this point. However, that is a perhaps unworthy suspicion that will be brushed aside by the Home Secretary.
Be that as it may, allegations of a fairly specific nature have been made, and I do not believe that the House could have let them pass unnoticed. Indeed, so long ago as 2nd May 1965 a resolution was passed to the effect that
The offer of money or other advantages to any Member for the promoting of any matter whatsoever depending or to be transacted is a high crime and misdemeanour.
The House has on numerous occasions since then demonstrated that it feels that the kind of conduct which rumour and, in particular, the Observer have suggested has been committed cannot be let pass by the House without some investigation and action.
I find myself entirely in agreement with that point of view, but I wonder whether we should not, particularly in the light of the Report of the Salmon Commission, have had a broader look at the question earlier. I know that it will be objected that the Salmon Commission reported only in July, and I do not wish to take a partisan point about the way in which we have been flooded with legislation of a far less important character. We should direct ourselves to the Salmon Report in the near future. I hope that the Home Secretary, as he is also concurrently Leader of the House, will give its some information on this point.
Accepting that there is a gap in the law and that these matters cannot be examined dispassionately and judicially in the courts—that would be the proper place for them to be examined—we are faced with the option of setting up the Select Committee that we are considering today. May I respectfully offer my condolences and sympathy to those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who, I have no doubt out of a spirit of public service, have accepted positions on the Select Commitee, because I believe that theirs will be a very onerous and thankless task?
I want to raise a variety of questions, not that I shall suggest the answers to them, nor even expect the Home Secretary to give the answers today, but only to demonstrate the disadvantages under which such a Committee will labour.
Of course we can all take points about the terms of reference. Indeed, other hon. Gentlemen, and I myself, will be anxious to know how far beyond the

House it will be necessary to investigate. Will it be proper or appropriate for the Committee to investigate those who are no longer Members of the House? Will it be proper to investigate those in local government? How far outside the confines of the Chamber here and now will the Committee have to enlarge its investigations? This is a matter of some ambiguity, as I read the terms of reference. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, although not the Prime Minister, certainly threw some light on these ambiguities, but I hope that at the end of our debate the Home Secretary will give us some more enlightenment on this.
Next, the proceedings of the Committee give me cause for thought. The Prime Minister said that the Committee would be entitled to engage accountants. As any of us who have been even peripherally involved with company investigations or with questions of company fraud know, there must be some body charged with the conduct of the investigation. Is the Committee to be equipped with such an investigating body? Dare I say it—it may be out of order—but are the Clerks of Parliament equipped by training to conduct this kind of inquiry?
I do not imagine that the Committee would relish engaging the services of the Fraud Squad, but I believe that probably at the end of the day that is the only body equipped by training and experience to conduct this kind of inquiry. It will be very difficult indeed for the Committee to conduct the sort of roaming inquisition which may be essential, even if it throws out questions from time to time for firms of accountants of the highest repute and the greatest experience to investigate.
When a case is ready to be brought before the Committee, again who is to deploy the case? I understand that the Committee will have the assistance of the Attorney-General. I have no doubt that he will give the Committee all the assistance in his power, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that when be appears in court he has a wealth of support behind him: he has the vast resources of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Treasury Solicitor. Are those offices to be available to assist the Attorney-General, and how will he present the case to the Committee?
Then, indeed, when a prima facie case has been made, will it be put extensively to those hon. Gentlemen whose reputations are at stake? We understand that they will be allowed to appear by counsel, but will they be permitted to cross-examine those who evidence is the basis of the case deployed by the Attorney-General? Will they be allowed to look at all the documents and to cross-examine those from whom they derive?
I refer to only one document. This is because it has been so much before the public eye. It is the letter, or perhaps more exactly the photostat copy of the letter, purporting to have been written by an hon. Member to Mr. Poulson. Let us suppose that the Committee feels that that raises a serious case for that hon. Gentleman to answer. Will he be allowed to take, through his counsel, the kind of points that he could take in a court of law? Will he be allowed to find out from what source that letter emanates?
Will he be allowed to cross-examine the Editor of the Observer? It would be nothing but a public scandal if the Editor of the Observer, if he has any confidence in the case which he has deployed, were not called to give evidence and exposed to cross-examination by those hon. Gentlemen whose reputations are at stake. This, perhaps, is unprecedented, but perhaps we are embarked on an unprecedented course.
What standards of proof will be required? Will the onus be on the prosecution, if I may so call the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General; or will it be on the defence? These are, perhaps, matters which the Committee will have to determine. We shall no doubt for future reference and future occasions watch with interest what it determines in this case.
I hope that I have uncovered to the House sonic of the difficulties that I see lying in the path of this Committee.

Mr. Peyton: My hon. and learned Friend will find quite a lot of the answers to the questions that he has been asking if he reads the proceedings of the previous Select Committee on the Boothby case, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition mentioned this afternoon.

Mr. Rees: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. I have indeed taken the precaution of reading those proceedings. We have not been told by the Prime Minister—perhaps it was not for him to tell us—whether this Committee will follow that procedure exactly. May I remind my right hon. Friend, who has no doubt devoted a great deal of thought to these matters and who, though perhaps he may not care to admit it now, had certain legal training at one time, that in the Boothby case one specific allegation was made against one hon. Member? This is to be a roving inquiry—we are not told against whom, nor precisely in what field. We are told that it is in any matter connected with Mr. Poulson. I am not certain—it may be that the Home Secretary will be able to reassure me, or perhaps my right hon. Friend will be giving the House the benefit of his experience—but it may be that there is a precedent that can be followed fairly exactly.
I pass now from the Committee itself to the House. The Prime Minister was apt to give the analogy that the verdict will be ours. I have considerable reservations about that. I greatly hope that the evidence will be produced in full, and I entirely fall in line with the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the evidence should not be published until the conclusion, that it should be published then, and that the Committee should then state precisely what evidence it has accepted and what evidence it has rejected.
Again, if I am asked from this Chamber to pass judgment on any right hon. or hon. Gentleman, I shall feel a certain reticence about reaching judgment merely on published evidence. Of course I have confidence in the integrity and judgment of those who are to serve on the Committee, but as we are in fact involved in something very near to a State trial, and if as the Prime Minister suggests I am to be asked to pass the verdict, I am not certain that I should not have preferred to see that evidence tested and to see the prosecution witnesses under cross-examination.
I never like passing judgment at second hand. That may sound a rather priggish point of view, but I can only give it to the


House for what it is worth. If indeed the House is to give the verdict, are we to give it on the basis of the published evidence and the conclusions of the Committee? Shall we be entitled to call any right hon. or hon. Gentleman against whom the Committee has made a finding or on whose conduct it has passed a stricture?
Will such a Member be summoned to the Bar of the House? There is the precedent of the Boothby case. My right hon. Friend will no doubt remind me that Mr. Boothby, as he then was, made a speech to the House. He took his case with a certain gentlemanly reticence. He appeared to accept. But supposing an hon. Member is not disposed to take that attitude, will he be allowed to deploy his case again for the benefit of the House?
Perhaps many of my fears are fanciful and perhaps hon. Members feel that I am drawing on my legal experience—which is not great in the criminal field—and that I am adopting too legalistic an approach to the matter. But the consequences to those concerned will be just as grave as they would be if a court of law were involved. We must be certain that the procedures that we adopt take account of that.
Although on this occasion we may be compelled to adopt a certain course of action, it could be a dereliction of duty if we did not at least consider the Salmon Report, perhaps against the background of this case. We need to consider the gap in the law which means that hon. Members who indulge in corrupt practices and those who attempt to corrupt them are free from criminal charges.
Like the Salmon Commission, I believe that the best course is to amend the law and to introduce a new Corruption Act to enable a criminal charge to be brought against hon. Members and those who attempt to corrupt them in the course of their parliamentary duties. In that way they would at least be assured of a proper trial in a dispassionate, judicial atmosphere, where the evidence against them could be propertly tested and examined and that decision if needs be, be taken to a higher court. Perhaps I am trespassing on the kindness of the House by touching on these matters. It would be wrong to leave this as a narrow issue that we can dispose of today. We must see it in its

proper context and we must see it as a prelude to some kind of implementation of the Salmon Commission's conclusions.
I hope that I share the common desire to see that the name of the House and the name of hon. Members is cleared, but I wonder whether this is what we shall achieve. I shall not be voting against the motion. Perhaps we are putting too heavy a burden on those hon. Members who have consented to sit on the Committee. Perhaps we are putting at risk in an unsatisfactory way the reputations of those hon. Members against whom a case may be made. And finally I wonder whether we shall be able to reassure the public that matters in the House are conducted as they should be.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Listening to my hon. and learned Friend, I observed that the tenor he has taken throughout is that, were it not for the Prevention of Corruption Act, hon. Members would be charged with criminal offences. Has he any justification for saying that? I have seen nothing to justify the view expressed by the Observer.

Mr. Rees: Of course, I do not know what the evidence is which is available to the Observer and I cannot forecast what it is. But a scintilla of a case, a prima facie case of a kind, appears to have been made and in regard to it one can perhaps detect whether the existing statute law is defective.
I make no assumptions about any hon. Members. I read the Observer articles. I do not know the source of the letter; I do not know whether it is a photostat copy. If the law were effective, I do not know whether there would be a prima facie case. I hope that the Attorney-General will give us his valuable views.

Mr. Abse: Is it not the case that the police are debarred—as the Salmon Report makes clear—from making an investigation at the moment so that nobody could know whether a prima facie case exists? It is a lacuna in the law that prevents anyone from knowing whether there is a prima facie case.

Mr. Rees: I am in the invidious position of trying to answer two questions at once. I am inclined to agree that if the matter had been put to Scotland Yard—and perhaps the Attorney-General will


explain the situation—we should have been told that it was idle for investigations of hon. Members to be conducted, that it was a waste of scarce resources because there is nothing known in law as the corruption of hon. Members or the attempted corruption of hon. Members in the discharge of their duties.
I hope that no words of mine have suggested that I have prejudged the issue in any way. I do not know whether there is a case against any hon. Member who is in or who was formerly in the House. I apologise for being so lengthy but I am concerned about our position as caused by the defects in the law.
I have no doubt that the members of the Committee will do their level best to make the procedure work and to demonstrate to those whose reputations are at stake and to people outside that they are dispassionate and scrupulously fair. But I wonder whether they are qualified for the job—not by their training or character, but by the powers given by the House. I wonder whether they will be able to do a satisfactory job which will satisfy the House, those whose reputations are at stake, and the public.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I am inclined to agree that there is a gap in the law which grants immunity to MPs and which should be removed. But that will not help us in this case.
I remind the House of the things that happened during the Lynskey Tribunal. Those who argue in favour of total publicity have forgotten what occurred at that tribunal. Most of us had no idea at the time what would happen under those circumstances. Mr. Sydney Stanley discovered that what he said at that tribunal was entirely privileged and that no action for slander or libel could result from any statements that he made at the tribunal. The tribunal was conducted on the understanding that he would not be liable for any prosecution for perjury. I am not sure whether that was correct under the law but he proceeded on that assumption. Mr. Stanley made a series of sweeping allegations which were wholly fabricated and for which there was no evidence whatever. He named a large number of individuals and their

names were published in the newspapers for weeks. No remedy was open to those whose names were flaunted about in that way. There can hardly be a worse procedure than that.
Those who were defamed in that way had no remedy. I remember that on behalf of some colleagues in the House who found their names being bandied about by their constituents I consulted the Law Officers of the Crown to find out whether they had any remedy. The informed legal answer was that they had none, that they had to sit back for weeks at a time and allow those allegations to be made without being able to take any action. That seemed to me a worse abuse than the abuses which the tribunal was asked to investigate. I hope that nothing of that kind is allowed to happen this time. We should think before we argue in favour of unrestricted publicity.
Everyone is conducting the debate today on the assumption that we are protecting only the reputations of Members of Parliament. But Mr. Sydney Stanley did not restrict his wild fabrications to Members of Parliament. Although the terms of reference of this inquiry clearly do not intend that the actions of others should be entered into, if individuals can come before the Select Committee in public, there will be no way of preventing them from making allegations against whomsoever they wish—for example, the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Editor of The Times. To judge from the motion, the Chairman would no doubt rule them out of order, but we well know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Mr. Speaker cannot always rule hon. Members out of order in this House until their point of order has been stated, and it can then be published.
If there were total publicity I do not see how it would be possible to prevent some characters—no doubt of varying intelligence and discretion—from approaching the Committee and making allegations out of malice or delusion. As Members of Parliament, we all know that there are quite a number of curious characters who from time to time write us letters in which they make the most extraordinary allegations. I have no doubt that the Committee will be approached by at least some such people.
All that I am saying is that when we are advocating or considering the widest possible publicity, which obviously has an appeal at first sight, we should pause and think of what happened in the Lynskey Tribunal. We should be extremely careful not to permit injustices of that kind to occur. Whatever is the right procedure, which, as the last speech clearly showed, is extremely hard to say, the worst possible procedure would be anything on the lines of the Lynskey Tribunal.

5.43 p.m.

Mrs. Lynda Chalker: I am not a lawyer. I have never been employed in the legal profession and I cannot speak in erudite terms about the motion, but I am concerned about the view taken outside the House. Unlike the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I am concerned about what is thought not only by those who elect me but by the whole world outside.
There is a grave matter before us. After a long weekend of thought I came to the Chamber ready to support the Liberal amendment, but I have changed my mind after listening to the debate, and for a very good reason. It is the reason just advanced by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), that the public sifting of the evidence referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) would unleash something which I do not think hon. Members deserve—accusation and counter-accusation and claims from various people such as the right hon. Gentle man described to give evidence to the Select Committee. We should be doing ourselves a disservice.
I am fully aware of the need to stop any possible suppression of matters which are in the public interest and which may or may not be declared by Members, but we must be clear that it is not a court of law that we are setting up by the motion. It is a Select Committee to inquire into matters which concern the House. Representation before the Committee is a matter of some concern. If it were a court of law, those coming before it would have a legal right to be represented. Why is representation under the motion not a right of the person called but a matter that the Committee may decide
as they shall see fit"?

That is the part of the motion that most concerns me.
I also wonder whether the laws of libel will apply absolutely to the eventual published report. That is not clear from what I have heard this afternoon.
I firmly believe that until this country has a law of privacy we shall further involve ourselves over a period in disputes and doubts of this nature over the activities of hon. Members. As a supporter of the Register of Members' Interests, I am convinced that most people in the country are prepared to accept that Members of Parliament enter into outside activities in good faith, but we are all well aware that it is not too difficult for some people, if they are of a mind to do so, to represent those outside interests in a manner totally different from that which was intended. Therefore, the House needs a protection which I hope will come from deliberations and probably eventual law on the basis of the Salmon. Report recommendations.
However, that is not what we are considering. We are considering whether the evidence should be published as the Select Committee goes along, as would happen under the Liberal amendment, or whether the Committee should have the right to sift and decide what is relevant and admissible. Who is to decide what is relevant and admissible? I agreed with the hon. Member for Bolsover when he asked who would be the absolute decision-maker. We are in grave difficulty. I believe, from what the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, that it will be possible for the Select Committee to call on the judiciary for advice on what is relevant and admissible in the evidence that is sifted and then published as the findings of the Select Committee.
But I hope that all hon. Members will accept that there should be no suppression of information which should be laid upon the Table in the public interest. If I thought that the Select Committee was incapable of putting that information in the final report, I should probably still support the Liberal amendment. I find myself unable to do so because I believe that we should cause certain people not to present evidence to the Select Committee if every jot and tittle were reported,


and misreported, in the Press as the Committee proceeded on its difficult way.
I hope that we shall hear from the Home Secretary that those matters which so concern the public about the way in which our national life is now conducted will be considered by the House at an early stage but that for the time being we are taking the fair, considerate and just way for hon. Members who may be named and against whom allegations may be rightly or incorrectly made. I hope that we shall reduce the public disquiet on these matters by an unequivocal report, and that, if the evidence should then be presented to the Attorney-General or other persons, criminal charges will be proceeded with. For the present, it is not for us nor the Select Committee to judge, but it is for us to put our own house in order.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: When Mr. Boothby, as he then was, spoke to the House when the Select Committee Report dealing with his case was presented, he made some comments which I believe are relevant to our discussions today. He made it clear that the powers of a Select Committee which had made a judgment on his conduct far exceeded those of a court of law. He emphasised the point that much of the evidence that was put in would have been inadmissible in a court. In addition, he said that the decision of the majority in a Select Committee became the findings of the Committee as a whole. He pointed to a specific piece of evidence which had been put in and said that that evidence would not have been upheld had it been presented in a court of law because it would have been privileged and could not have been introduced in that manner.
Commenting on that episode, Mr. Boothby, as he then was, said that there was both rhyme and reason for the procedure in our courts of law, and that there was something to be said for adopting it in his own case. He was saying that what he had gone through was a trial, and so he had. Nobody who has read the evidence or studied the report could come to any other possible conclusion.
The dilemma we now face, as the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Rees) pointed out, is that we have avoided

taking action so far by dealing with a lacuna in the law. It means that in engaging in parliamentary activities we are immune from the ordinary statute law as it relates to corruption, and so are any people who attempt to corrupt us in our parliamentary activities.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: My hon. Friend has put the matter in the wrong way. It is not that we are immune from a criminal act that we could commit. There is no criminal act capable of being committed under the present law by a Member of Parliament in exercise of his parliamentary duties. There is not immunity in that way. The fact is that it is not a criminal offence in the first place, anyway.

Mr. Abse: My hon. Friend is engaging in an argument about semantics. I would ask the House to refer to the relevant paragraph in Lord Salmon's Report:
It is in the light of the foregoing paragraphs that we note the fact that neither the statutory nor the common law applies to the bribery or attempted bribery of a Member of Parliament in respect of his parliamentary activities. It is clear to us that a Member of Parliament cannot, in that capacity, be deemed an 'agent' for the purposes of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906. It is equally clear that Parliament could not be deemed to be a 'public body' for the purposes of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889. Nor does membership of Parliament as such, constitute public office for the purposes of the common law.
It means that proceedings cannot be brought to bring before the courts a Member of Parliament or somebody who has attempted to corrupt in respect of actions in connection with those parliamentary activities. It is useless to deny what is being said in every editorial and by people outside the House that Members of Parliament have a special position in relation to the offence of corruption.
Furthermore, it means that in the event of any facts coming to the police which relate to a possible act of corruption by any individual outside the House, or in respect of receipt of money or any other gift by a Member of Parliament corruptly, it is not possible in those circumstances, as Lord Salmon pointed out, for the police to pursue those inquiries with the full confidence that they are engaged in something that comes within their purview. Indeed, they could be in contempt


of Parliament in pursuing such an investigation. Therefore, it is valueless to attempt to evade the reality of the situation when we are criticised outside the House because we are in this curious position.
It is highly unfortunate that we are in this position at the very moment when we are well aware that throughout the land, and particularly in the Principality of Wales, trials are taking place affecting other people in public office who are able to be brought before the court. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) instanced the case of certain steelworkers against whom charges were laid yesterday. I shall not comment on that case because it is sub judice, but certainly those workers have had to face the publicity involved in the issue of summonses which have been served upon them. It is impossible for us to suggest that those people are not in a different position from any Member of Parliament.
What are we to do about the matter? We can be subjected, as was Lord Boothby on an earlier occasion, to a trial without the proper rules of evidence and without the form of testing that takes place in a criminal court. We are now saying that we have no alternative but to proceed more or less slavishly in the same manner as on other occasions, although we are all uneasy about the situation.
Are we so helpless in the present situation? What are we concerned about? It is true, as the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition tried to suggest in reply to my intervention in her speech, that perhaps the matter with which we are concerned goes beyond matters that would normally concern a criminal court, and indeed, that they go beyond actual corruption. That may be so, but what the general public and the community are concerned about—and I believe that we as Members of Parliament are also concerned about—is the question whether there has been any attempted corruption of a Member of this House, and indeed whether any Member has been corrupted.
Is it being said vaguely and in some inchoate manner that there has been some misbehaviour on the part of some Members which goes beyond a peccadillo but which is less than a criminal act? Is

it being suggested that because of that situation we now have to set up the whole panoply of a Select Committee invested with powers to enable it to have a roving commission and to engage in an inquisition evocative of the McCarthy era? Are we saying that, because there are some rumours abroad that somebody has committed something short of a criminal act but more than some peccadillo, we have to become engaged in a Select Committee investigation invested with powers which make us all profoundly uneasy?
I do not accept it. Outside opinion wants to feel certain not that there is some prurient inquiry into some peripheral activities of Members but that, if there has been any bribery or attempted bribery, or if anyone has acted in his parliamentary capacity in anticipation corruptly of receiving a reward, and if he would have been charged had he not been a Member of Parliament, then he should be placed in exactly the same position as anyone else.
Going almost outside their terms of reference, Lord Salmon and his Commission recommended that corruption, bribery and attempted bribery within a Member's parliamentary activity should be brought within the ambit of the criminal law. Is it too late to do that in these circumstances? I do not share the view expressed today that it is too late. Irrespective of what may come out of this debate. I hope that the Home Secretary will assure us that the small Bill recommended by Lord Salmon is included in the Queen's Speech. Otherwise we shall face this problem again if there is an errant Member at any time in future.
Perhaps the only good thing which can come out of this debate is an intimation that consideration will be given to such a Bill, so that the community may be assured that we are taking action to prevent anything like this occurring again. Could such a Bill apply to these circumstances? People's first reaction is, "Would that not be restrospective?"

Mr. Jay: Well. would it not?

Mr. Abse: My right hon. Friend expressed the strength of his distaste for the Lynskey Tribunal. Will he now vote for a Select Committee which will be retrospective? It will be investigating


conduct which took place, or was alleged to have taken place, years before.

Mr. Jay: Surely that is not the same thing as legislating and declaring something to be an offence which was not a legal offence at the time that it was committed.

Mr. Abse: But the powers of this House in dealing with the Report of a Select Committee are, except in one respect exactly the same punitive powers as any court of law would have—and in another respect we should have more powers. This House can suspend a Member. No court can do that directly, although it could be the consequence of a sentence. We can put an hon. Member into the hands of the Serjeant at Arms and send him to prison. We can do everything except fine him: that is all we cannot do. If my right hon. Friend thinks that the vague, indeterminate rules under which this Committee will operate will give more justice to any hon. Member than a defined law, I do not agree.
I therefore believe that we are committing a blunder in setting up the Select Committee. We are going into a morass. The hon. and learned Member for Dover delineated many of the likely problems. There were enough problems in the Boothby case, but this is a wider dimension. It is suggested that more than one hon. Member may be involved: we know not how wide the net may be cast. The problems caused by the Lynskey Tribunal could arise again, although it is suggested that we shall at least have the benefit of casting a veil over them, because the proceedings will be in secret.
But in going along that path we are estranging ourselves entirely from outside opinion. The views of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover to this extent bear the stamp of those expressed in working men's clubs throughout the country. If we set up what will be regarded as a clandestine Select Committee, it will be interpreted, no matter how ungenerously, and no matter how we protest, as giving ourselves treatment which is not afforded to a man before a court of law.

Mr. John Ryman: While one appreciates the force of my hon. Friend's desire for legislation quickly next Ses-

sion to deal with the gap in the law, and while one also appreciates the many difficulties to which he has referred, what is the alternative to a Select Committee in these circumstances? Is he suggesting that the matter should be overlooked? Surely not.

Mr. Abse: No. I do not think that the matter should be overlooked. I hate to say anything in criticism of the Attorney-General, who has enough problems and whose scrupulous conduct we all admire, but if he found himself unable—as he clearly did, judging from the announcement ultimately made—to take any proceedings because of the problems of jurisdiction which we have discussed, the first and obvious thing to do was to come to the House and explain the situation and to get the aid of the House in getting legislation through.
That still could be done. Of this I am certain—we shall not be concluding this matter quickly by setting up a Select Committee which will sit right through the next Session. We can judge that from the time taken by the Boothby inquiry. Setting up this Committee will not cut any corners. We are even placing ourselves under the possibility of severe criticism—that, instead of an independent inquiry before a judge, we are inquiring ourselves. We have told the police that there must be an independent element in inquiries concerning policemen, but we do not adopt that principle for ourselves. Lawyers have introduced a lay element into disciplinary proceedings, but we shall exclude Press and public.
We should say boldly that there is a lacuna in the law. If there is any among us who has offended against the law, let the law be made clear so that he may be brought to trial. When the matter came before the court, no accused would be prejudiced as in a Select Committee. As the law now provides it could sit in secret if it wished during any preliminary proceedings—thus avoiding the danger of a wrongful accusation without prima facie evidence. So I put forward the view that, if we are to vote for this resolution, clumsily though the Liberal Party spokesman put his case, better that than to have a completely secret inquiry.
After all, many of us have sat upon Select Committees which have sometimes sat openly and sometimes privately. I


have been sitting for more than one Session on a Select Committee which has been engaged in that manner. Why should this be so special? Under a disciplined chairman of great experience, as is intended to be appointed, tact can be used to determine whether a meeting should or should not be in private. That would mitigate the problem, though of course it would not solve it. The Attorney-General, who will be presenting evidence, will have a great awareness of what he will be presenting and will undoubtedly be able to give an intimation to the Select Committee if he thinks it likely or probable that someone utterly irresponsible will attend with the intention of indulging in smear campaigns. The disciplines could be imposed. We have eminent lawyers sitting on Select Committees. Why should not they he able to impose the same discipline as they would if they were sitting as recorders and wishing to short-circuit someone who wanted to use the occasion merely to publicise himself and to smear innocent people?
We are taking too comfortable a view. I believe that the two Front Benches are taking far too comfortable a view in believing that, if they can persuade sufficient of us that there should be an inquiry of this kind, the matter can be resolved to the satisfaction of people outside. It will not be. It will attract obliquely even if it is undeserved; and it would be wise for us to make clear that we are ready in the first instance to act upon the recommendations of the Salmon inquiry, that we shall proceed in that matter. But that, if the House cannot be persuaded to act as quickly as that, by way of legislation, at least we shall not impose secrecy on the Select Committee. We ought to give the Committee the discretion to decide when to sit in public and when in private and not give, by passing this resolution, a demonstration by this House that at all costs there must be secrecy during the whole of this prolonged inquiry.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: When the appropriate moment comes, I shall move, in line 24 of the line 24, at the end to insert—
'That no witness summoned to appear before the Committee shall claim Crown Privilege as

a justification for refusing to answer questions asked by the Committee:'
Before getting on to the subject matter of this inquiry, I hope that we can all agree upon one issue. It is that if the Committee is unable to get at the truth because it has inadequate powers it will do a gross disservice to this House and to the public.
What are the powers that the Committee may need? We are concerned, among other matters, with payments of money. Anyone who receives a payment of money for services rendered has, under the existing law, an obligation to declare it for income tax. If that money has been paid to him, whether or not he is a Member of this House, to reimburse him for expenses that he has paid out on behalf of the person who has paid him the money, he can file with his income tax return the receipts for those expenditures and, if the inspector is satisfied, he will not have to pay income tax on the money. But it is not open to a Member of this House to decide for himself whether he should file with his income tax returns payments that he has received from Mr. Poulson or anyone else. He is bound to file them. If he does not, he has committed a criminal offence. But he will not be charged tax on them if the Inland Revenue is satisfied that they are not an income but repayment of a disbursement.
However, no Minister can order the Inland Revenue to reveal such information even to Ministers and, as matters stand at the moment, no Select Committee can require such information from the Inland Revenue without the Inland Revenue being able to claim Crown privilege and to refuse to answer such questions.
Having listened to the entire debate to date, I am not at all certain which of two jobs it is that the Government wish the Select Committee to do. One is to do the job of the criminal court; that is to say, to accuse an hon. Member or Members of what would be an offence in normal criminal law were that hon. Member not an hon. Member of this House of Commons. Alternatively, it is to ascertain whether the hon. Member or Members have been guilty of conduct that


would not be an offence were they not Members of this House but that is
a contempt of the House or … inconsistent with the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its Members.
Those two are totally different.
If anyone, including a Member of this House, is believed to have committed a statutory offence and is subjected to the normal criminal processes, the case is heard in open court but the evidence given is subject to the rules of evidence and the procedure of the court is subject to the normal rules of procedure.
Those of us who are addicts of Perry Mason on television will know that, very often, participants in those gripping serials ask for certain testimonies to be struck from the record. That does not mean that they are struck from the memories of those who have heard them, as we are vicariously allowed to do on television; it means that in the judge's summing-up they are not alluded to, and the artificial presumption is made that the human beings who constitute the jury will excise them from their memories. All of us know perfectly well that that is an impossible feat.
Incidentally, in the Perry Mason context, I am interested that the Liberal Party decided to choose a member of the jury as its spokesman in this debate, which is a somewhat unusual proceeding. I was astonished that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who appears in the motion as a member of the Select Committee, should it be appointed, was chosen to be his party's ex parte spokesman in this debate—he said that he was speaking on behalf of his right hon. and hon. Friends. I am not a lawyer, but I have never read of a member of the jury, before trying the ease, addressing the court on what he thinks should be the conditions in which he tries the case. I am astonished that the hon. and learned Gentleman should think it proper to do so.

Mr. Hooson: Surely we are discussing entirely procedural matters. Incidentally, I took the advice of one who is perhaps the most distinguished lawyer in the Conservative Party before I spoke in this debate.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I cannot help whose advice the hon. and learned Gentle-

man took. I am still astonished that he thought it right to speak in this debate.

Mr. Hooson: He is a former Lord Chancellor.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I cannot help whose advice the hon. and learned Gentleman took. He cannot discharge his responsibility by pleading that he tried to sub-contract that responsibility to someone else. If he thinks it right that he should be a member of the Select Committee, I think that that carries with it certain obligations beforehand. Clearly, the hon. and learned Gentleman is not of that view.
Among the issues that will be considered by the Select Committee, quite apart from who has done what, is what constitutes a contempt of this House and what was—in the past tense—inconsistent with the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its Members. If the Committee, unadvised by the House—this is a decision that the Committee will have to make for itself, without the benefit of any advice from the House—decides that it is
inconsistent with the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its Members
that its Members should accept money from a person or firm purely and solely because they are Members of this House and not because of any expertise they may have in the world of business, why are the terms of this inquiry confined to the words
in connection with the affairs of Mr. J. G. L. Poulson"?
If, on the other hand, the purpose of the inquiry is to examine the conduct of Members of this House in so far as it is
inconsistent with the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its Members",
but is not restricted to breaches of the criminal law, and it is particularly concerned with what an impartial inquiry has criticised, why is the criticism by the Department of Trade inspector directed towards a right hon. Gentleman who until recently was prominent in this House—he is still a Member of it—excluded from such an inquiry?
If the object of these proceedings is to enable the House to wipe its nose in public, why should it wipe only one


nostril? This is what I do not understand, because clearly that is what it will be doing.
We are told that owing to lacunae in the law Members of this House who accept money for acting corruptly cannot be prosecuted under the existing law. Is this so? There is such a thing as the law of conspiracy. There has been a lot of criticism of the breadth and the scope of the law of conspiracy. It is a novelty to hear it, by implication, criticised for its incapacity, for the smallness of its scope, for its unreasonable restriction.
If it is the case that Members of Parliament have taken money corruptly there must be at least two parties involved in that. Where there are at least two parties involved—I say this subject to correction from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General—I should imagine that that would give basis to a charge of conspiracy, would it not?

Mr. Ryman: I am following the argument with great interest, and the suggestion that the state of affairs complained of is capable of being dealt with by a charge of conspiracy, but does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that in order to get a charge of conspiracy on its feet, one of two specific things has to be proved which may well not be capable of proof in relation to the mystery that it is sought to solve here, namely, that there must be an agreement to do an unlawful thing or an agreement to do a lawful thing by unlawful means?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I do not believe that that is an exhaustive description. If the person concerned has agreed for a consideration to do something that he would not have done without that consideration—this is the essential aspect—and if what he has done is contrary to the duty which he owes in his vocation or employment, I think that the ex-prosecuting counsel for the Inland Revenue would be aware that that is a statutory offence.
For instance, if an employee of a firm accepts money to tell somebody outside the firm something about his employer's business, that is not a criminal offence. It is not a criminal offence to tell somebody about one's employer's business, but a charge of conspiracy would lie. I think that the hon. Member for Blyth

(Mr. Ryman)—whose very pertinent knowledge of these matters must be fresh in his memory—has misguided and misdirected himself to this context.
However, what the House is asked to do is something imprecise. I listened to the Prime Minister's speech with great interest, hoping to discover what it was that the Select Committee is expected to do. What, in fact, is the definition of conduct
inconsistent with the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its Members,
and what is
a contempt of the House
in that context?
If we look at the nineteenth edition of "Erskine May", we find on page 142, from the last paragraph onwards, descriptions of some acts which have been held to be inconsistent with a Member's duty to the House, but nowhere does it say that this exhausts the contempts of which a Member may be guilty.
Is the Select Committee to take this as the outer limit or the inner limit? We have not been told. What are to be the criteria for the Select Committee? If a man is charged before a court, he is charged with a specific offence, to which he can make an answer. But if the Committee—which is, understandably, prosecuting as well as investigating—does not even know what is and what is not the offence with which he is being charged, how is the Member concerned to know what it is against which he has to defend himself? That is what I do not understand.
If the House is to set up such a Committee—and I happen to take the view that it should set up such a Committee—it should define for the Committee the job that it has to do. I do not think it is right to set up such a Committee without defining the limits of the job that it has to do.
Before I came here today I had considerable sympathy with the amendment that will be moved by the present Leader of the Liberal Party, but I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) made a very telling point. Whereas in a normal criminal trial there are, first, the rules of evidence, with the verdict following at least within a day or so of the conclusion of the trial, we all know that the publication of a


Select Committee's findings comes generally not days, not weeks, but months after the conclusion of its taking evidence. Indeed, many of us have tried to speed up that process.
To make allegations against somebody—allegations that that person cannot rebut because that person is not entitled, as of right, to call witnesses to rebut them, and to have them published days, weeks or months before the assessment of that evidence by the prosecutor, who is also the judge, the maker of the rules of evidence, and the determinant of who shall or shall not be called as witnesses—is a corruption of justice, as I understand the word as a non-lawyer.
I do not say that there is any particular merit in legal processes, and I am all for Select Committees of the House in general making up the rules as they go along so that they can do their jobs more effectively, but if they do not know what their jobs are because it is not laid down in the motion setting them up, then a recognisable rubicon has been crossed.
I conclude by asking this question. What do the Government and the House want the Select Committee to do? Should it do the job of a criminal court with this difference, that because of lacunae in the law it does not happen to be an offence by the hon. Members concerned? Should it look beyond the criminal law and report on whether there has been conduct or activities amounting to contempt of the House, or inconsistent with the standards which the House is entitled to expect from Members as defined in pages 142 to 144 of the nineteenth edition of "Erskine May"? If that is not to be the criterion, what is? The Committee is not specifically empowered to invoke its own criteria. What are the rules of procedure to be?
Usually any person called in evidence has the right to call witnesses in rebuttal of the evidence given which reflects upon him. But the motion does not say this, and we are entitled to know. The problem is that nobody can tell us. Government Ministers who wind up this debate cannot tell us any more than is in the motion. They cannot say that they mean anything which is not in the motion, and that the Committee will do anything which is not in the motion because that

is not within their power. Members of the Committee cannot say what they will do because they have not yet been appointed as members of the Committee. The most sensible thing would be at the conclusion of this debate for the Government to withdraw the motion and re-table it in a couple of days after taking into consideration the points made from all sides of the House. I think that the Select Committee does need to be set up and it does need to do the job of which all of us are conscious, but the terms of reference in the motion are not fair to members of the Committee, Members of this House, or the public.
We have a duty when we ask our colleagues to discharge a function to define that function. We owe them that duty. It is onerous enough to ask them to be prosecutor, judge and jury, but it is intolerable to ask them as well to write the law on which they are adjudicating.

6.35 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): It may be convenient for the House if I intervene at this stage after the speech of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) who has put down a highly technical amendment on the Order Paper. I am not sure whether he was speaking to that amendment or not.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The way in which Mr. Speaker has called the amendments is that they should be moved formally at the end of the debate. If that were not the case we would be able to speak only to the amendments and not to the main motion.

The Attorney-General: I was aware of that. What I meant was that I was not quite clear whether the hon. Member's speech was directed towards the question whether a witness should be able to claim Crown privilege as a justification for refusing to answer questions asked by the Committee. If that was the case then I stress straight away that as far as I am concerned it will be my duty, and one I shall do my best to comply with, to make available to the Committee all the relevant materials which are in either my possession or that of the Government, or some other party, or where I have the opportunity of claiming or putting in a claim for material on behalf of the Committee.
It is possible, although I cannot at the moment think of an occasion on which it has occurred, that there may be some difference of opinion as to whether some document should or should not be produced to the House. If there were such a difference, the amendment put down by the hon. Member for Tiverton would not be the proper way of dealing with it. It would be necessary for an Address to be presented; but that would come if and when the occasion arose. No doubt this was the case with the Boothby Committee. That Committee came back to the House and said it needed something more than it had been provided with and it was given what it needed. I do not believe anything of that kind is likely to happen here because I shall do my best to produce all the relevant material to the House.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman representing himself to the House as being able to speak on behalf of the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue, an independent body, when not even a Treasury Minister can require it to reveal information about individual taxpayers? Is he representing himself as being able to produce such information? Will he undertake on behalf of the Chairman of the Board of the Inland Revenue that Crown privilege will not be pleaded? Is he aware that my amendment does not waive Crown privilege, that it simply orders witnesses not to invoke it?

The Attorney-General: I was coming to matters concerning the Inland Revenue and income tax. The hon. Member has, perhaps, forgotten the fact to which the Prime Minister drew attention at the outset of his speech. The reason why we are coming forward now and have not come forward before with this motion, is, as I said on 19th October, that I have reached the conclusion, with those advising me, that the point has been reached at which there is no evidence to support criminal charges. The position is also that, on the evidence we have, it is plain that a continuation of the investigation, in order to hope that there might be evidence to support criminal charges, would not be justified.
I can assure the hon. Member that that includes any form of offence, whether it be concerned with corruption or with offences again the Income Tax Acts,

or whether it be concerned with the offence of conspiracy which at one stage in his speech the hon. Member suggested might be involved. He can take, it, therefore, that on the most thorough and exhaustive survey by those advising me and by myself, of the whole of the material, there is no possibility at this stage, which we have reached after so many years of investigation, of coming forward with further criminal charges, whether relating to income tax or anything else. I therefore do not follow the point that he is making specifically in relation to income tax.
However, if some matter arose that in some way related to income tax but did not relate to a possible offence and that was, in the terms of the motion before the House, material—conduct or activities which could amount to contempt or might be inconsistent with the standard the House is entitled to expect from its Members—and this is a highly hypothetical supposition because I do not know of any such material—it would be for the Select Committee to decide whether to make use of its powers to send for persons, papers and records. If any such difficulty arose such as the hon. Member is referring to, I have already told the House that his amendment would not deal with that difficulty, and I have told the House what the proper procedure would be.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Why would it not deal with it?

The Attorney-General: Because the proper procedure is that to which I have already referred. The hon. Gentleman appears to disagree with me. He is entitled to advise the House just as I am entitled to do so, but I can only give the House the best advice I have, based on my knowledge and on what I am told by my advisers.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I am listening with rapt attention to what my right hon. and learned Friend says about there being no possibility of criminal prosecutions on the basis of such evidence as is known in relation to such matters as income tax returns. Ts he, therefore, assuring the House that the income tax returns of the hon. Members who might be concerned in this inquiry have been investigated?

The Attorney-General: I am assuring the House that in so far as the prosecuting authorities possess any material which might suggest that offences against the Income Tax Acts might have been committed, those matters have been gone into, and I have been advised—and I have accepted the advice, having seen that material—that it is not sufficient to warrant criminal proceedings on income tax matters.
I cannot, of course, say that some members of the public, at present unknown, may not write to the Chairman of the Committee giving him information, true, accurate, scurrilous or whatever, which may involve something to do with income tax. What I can say is that the Select Committee is not concerned with criminal offences. It is concerned with conduct or activities which could amount to a contempt of the House or which might be inconsistent with the standards that the House sets. These last words were taken from the resolution in the case of the Boothby Select Committee.
I did not find with those words the difficulty that was encountered by the hon. Member for Tiverton. It is not unusual for all kinds of bodies in dealing with members to take a view whether the conduct of those members is consistent or inconsistent with the standards which are set or expected to be followed by those in the organisation, whether it be a professional organisation dealing with solicitors or accountants, or any other such organisation. It is only by looking at the material which comes forward from case to case that one can build up the standards into a form which may serve as a precedent. That is the way in which the Select Committee on Privileges operates, and I have no doubt that that is the way in which this Committee will operate.
I wish to pass from that point and deal with just one or two other matters without covering any of the ground that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends to deal with later.
One point has been mentioned more than once in the course of the debate. I hope that what I say here will be noted and reported because of some of the observations which have been made in the Press. It is quite untrue that but

for the article in the Observer these matters would not have been presented to the House, whether by way of such a proposal as we have made, and as I believe is right, for a Select Committee, or in some other way.
I have no doubt that I can speak for my predecessor in this matter when I say that we have been considering what would happen when the time eventually arrived—and it came much later than we had hoped—when I would be able to say, as I did on 19th October, that the criminal investigation had come to an end. We all knew that there would be residual material which could not be left as it stood, whatever the form in which it was inquired into. We did not know whether it would be material affecting only Members of Parliament or outside people as well. We did not know whether it would be material such as has been customarily held to justify a tribunal of inquiry—that is, something affecting gravely the nation as a whole—or whether it would be confined to a much narrower compass. I am glad that it has been confined to the compass of Members of this House, and that means Members at the time when the events were occurring, and that it is for this House to deal with a domestic matter rather than that it should be left to an outside body such as I have described.

Mr. David Steel: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, while we may all accept his words, the impression given by the Prime Minister when he answered my Private Notice Question on 20th October was that he twice referred to the need for the House to focus on the future and not worry about the past? Contrary to the impression given by the Attorney-General, he specifically said that he was unable to express a view on whether we should look back. That is reported in column 1453 of Hansard of that day. That is quite contrary to what the Attorney-General is telling us. In the considered statement the following day the Prime Minister said—it is in column 1659—that in the course of exchanges the previous day the view had been expressed that such allegations having been made and having achieved wide publicity it would be in the public interest that they should be investigated. That, too, does


not square with what the Attorney-General is telling us.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member heard what my right hon. Friend said earlier in the debate when he said that he had been confronted with the Private Notice Question at the very last moment with very little opportunity to go back into the history of the matter. I am telling the hon. Gentleman what was happening as far as my Department was concerned. I have no doubt that the same sort of thing was happening when the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) was in office. We were looking forward, not with pleasure but as a fact, to what would happen next.
I do not know whether a motion would have been put down this week or next if it had not been for the Observer article, but a motion would have been put down, for either a Select Committee or some other form of tribunal. In my view, the appropriate tribunal is the one now being discussed by the House. I hope that no one will give currency to the idea, which appeared to emerge from some of the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and which I hope he will repudiate, and from observations in the Press, that but for the Observer article there would have been a monumental cover-up. The very idea that there could be a monumental cover-up in relation to material which is perfectly well known to the public and which has been the subject of reports in periodicals and the Press is so absurd that it does not stand up for one moment.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is it so absurd?

The Attorney-General: I have explained why we propose to set up a Select Committee rather than some other form of tribunal.
The Leader of the Opposition was asked about the possibility of the Press naming people, whether hon. Members or not, who might give evidence to the Committee as a result of newspapermen and others watching who went into the Committee. I have no doubt that for them to do so could be a contempt. It is always a matter for the House to decide whether something is a contempt,

but this sort of conduct could obstruct the Committee in the functions given to it by the House. I hope that I need say no more than that.

Sir Michael Havers: The words in lines 3 and 4 of the motion are in the past tense. They are:
whether any such conduct or activities amounted to a contempt of the House or was inconsistent with the standards which the House is entitled to expect".
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be advising the Committee, can he confirm that the motion applies to anyone who was a Member of this House at the relevant period?

The Attorney-General: The House is here concerned with the conduct of persons who were Members at the time certain events occurred. I read the terms of the motion to mean the conduct and activities of those who, at the material time, were Members, whether they are now or not. It is for the Committee, subject to the view of the House, to decide these matters, but that is the advice which I would give, if asked.
There is only one other matter with which I wish to deal, unless hon. Members have questions on other points. I refer to the procedure which I advise the Committee to adopt in carrying out what I accept will be extremely difficult functions, not made easier by the fact that although I have a great deal of evidence and information which has caused this motion to appear on the Order Paper there may be all kinds of people seeking to assist the Committee by giving it material, whether accurate or ill-founded, scurrilous or not. We start, as has been said quite properly by the hon. Member for Tiverton and others, with no firm knowledge. We have a certain amount of knowledge, but no firm knowledge about how wide the scope of the inquiry will be. I recognise that this creates some difficulty.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has told the House that he regards the amendment standing in the names of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) and myself as being defective in some way, but has not shared with the House the grounds on which he believes it to be so. What are the grounds on


which he believes that a perfectly clear amendment which reads
That no witness summoned to appeal before the Committee shall claim Crown Privilege as a justification for refusing to answer questions asked by the Committee:
will not do precisely that? It does not require a Crown waiver of privilege because it is not a waiver of privilege. It is merely an instruction to witnesses not to exercise their right to claim Crown Privilege. On what grounds does the right hon. and learned Gentleman believe the amendment to be defective? If he has grounds, he has a duty to tell the House what they are, or are these groundless observations on his part?

The Attorney-General: I thought that I had satisfied the House—though maybe not the hon. Member for Tiverton—on this matter. I made clear that in questions affecting documents within the possession of the Crown, where the Crown did not make them available—though I hope there will be no such circumstances—the proper course would be to use the procedure of an Address to the Crown. The hon. Gentleman's amendment would not do what he wants it to do.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Why not?

The Attorney-General: I do not think that the House would want me to go into a long, technical explanation. I have it here if hon. Members want it. I shall gladly put it in writing and send it to the hon. Member for Tiverton. We have studied this matter since the amendment appeared on the Order Paper and I hope that the House will accept what I have said.
I return to the much more important matter of the procedure which the Committee may wish to adopt, having regard to the undoubted difficulty of the task it will be performing. May I advise the House on the way in which I hope and believe the Committee will carry out functions which the House will place upon it?
I went a very long way with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, but at the last minute he rather illogically wanted to bring the whole thing into public at a certain stage. I agreed when he said that the type of inquiry we should have in mind is like that carried out by

Department of Trade and Industry inspectors under Section 165 of the Companies Act.
All kinds of people may give evidence to the Select Committee, and if it became clear that there were matters for a person to answer and an application were made to the Select Committee by that person, who had been given proper notice, for the assistance of counsel, I hope that the Committee would grant him that assistance and also that counsel would have the opportunity to sum up what the person had said at the end of his evidence. I go further even than that. It is vital that everybody concerned, and especially anyone who may be criticised thereafter by the Committee, should feel that he has been treated scrupulously fairly and that no criticism of him has not been put to him in a way which gives him the opportunity to answer.
The procedure which I believe to be current for inquiries under Section 165 is that, if at the end of the day, when the inspectors—in this case it would be the Select Committee—have reached a tentative conclusion, and feel, on the evidence, that somebody should be criticised, they put that criticism to the person concerned and give him the opportunity, if he wishes to do so, to make further representations, either in writing or orally, with the help of counsel again if he wishes.
I hope that that will be the way in which the Committee will operate. It seems a totally fair way of proceeding. There is precedent for it, and I believe that the public will accept it.

Mr. Peter Rees: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that there is criticism of Board of Trade inquiries on that point, in that those who are to be criticised or who may be at risk of criticism do not have the chance of testing the evidence given by other witnesses against them. I shall be grateful if he will consider whether that defect may be remedied in the proceedings of the Committee.

The Attorney-General: The main criticism of the Section 165 inquiry, as it used to be—I speak with a certain amount of personal experience of the matter—is that some such inquiries did not have the last stage to which I referred—that is, the


inspectors, having heard all the evidence and summed it up, saying "This is what we propose to say about you. Now you have a further opportunity to deal with that".
Cross-examination is a different matter altogether. If one had unlimited cross-examination we should be back to the tribunal of inquiry type of procedure, which I do not think appropriate for this sort of investigation. It is for the Select Committee itself, with all its highly distinguished lawyer members and others, to test the evidence of all the witnesses. I can see no reason in the world why it should not be able to do so by asking appropriate questions and putting to each witness, particularly one under possible criticism, what some other witness may have said, and giving him opportunity to answer.

Mr. Abse: I take the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees). Members of the Committee, lacking instructions upon the facts that will come before the Committee, and lacking what every solicitor and every barrister has when he wants to cross-examine, cannot be fully in a position to conduct an inquiry by asking questions. Is it not clear that whoever is being charged is under scrutiny and is disadvantaged by not having an opportunity to cross-examine?

The Attorney-General: I have cited the nearest analogy that one can possibly find to the kind of inquiry which is to be embarked upon as proposed. It is a form of inquiry which has always been regarded, subject to the point I made, as being fair. It is not an inquiry such as is heard in court, where there are charges or pleadings from the very beginning, one knows precisely what material is to be put forward, and cross-examination by a number of people may be permitted.
I hope that the House will agree that we have gone as far along the road as one possibly can in order to comply with both the principle of doing justice to individuals and the principle of not so opening up the matter as inevitably to produce suspicions getting into the Press and so on, to the detriment of Members and, possibly, other people, who would be condemned in advance of any report made by the Committee to the House.
I hope that the House will accept that this is a proper procedure, which is precedented; and that the House will trust the members of the Committee, when they are appointed, to do in a fair way the job given to them, in a fair way which takes account of all the difficulties and gives every opportunity to anyone who may be criticised to make whatever points he wants to make, and enables the Committee, as a result of the points he makes, to question other witnesses, and so on. It is the method which has been adopted by the Committee of Privileges again and again, and I see no reason why the House should fear that, on this matter, more complex though it is than some of the others which have come before the Privileges Committee, unfairness will be done.
If at any stage the Committee itself feels that it cannot be fair to those who are before it, it has the opportunity, as happened in the Boothby case, to come back to the House to ask for further powers. We think that the powers given to it are adequate. It is for the Committee to apply them, and, if it feels it cannot do justice, it has the opportunity to come back to ask for more.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The question which has most concerned the House in this debate is whether the proceedings of the Committee should be in public. I shall address myself to that, but wish first to go back to the argument that I initiated between the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and myself, which has been taken up by other Members since, about what is meant by corruption in law and whether Members of Parliament can be guilty of that offence. I wish to restate the matter not only because the Press has so misunderstood it but because an element of confusion about what is immunity and what is a criminal offence has entered into so many of the speeches, notably that of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), in which he made what I thought a disastrous mistake about the question of retrospection, simply because he had misunderstood the distinction.
Corruption arises in law only in relation to three categories—members or agents of public bodies and people who are concerned with Government contracts. It


is not, as the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said, an offence for any person to take money simply to influence him in the conduct of his job. It has to be a particular type of job, and the law as defined in the Prevention of Corruption Act says that "public body" relates to a local authority and to various other bodies but does not include this House.
Therefore, for a Member of Parliament to take money in order to influence him in the course of his duties is not a criminal offence. Perhaps it should be. Perhaps there ought to be such an offence. I think that there should be. So, apparently, does Lord Salmon. However, it is not a criminal offence, and, most important of all, it was not a criminal offence at the time of the circumstances which have been the subject of so much comments and which will be the subject to consideration by the Select Committee. To make a criminal offence of that kind of conduct and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool argued, to make it retrospective to the time when a particular person was carrying out certain duties in relation to his parliamentary affairs in this House, would be grossly unjust.
If, in 1965, a Member of Parliament took money in order that he should make a speech in the House, and that was not then a criminal offence, he, properly advised, might well have accepted that money and done that, provided that it was not a criminal offence and not an offence against the rules of order of the House. If it were now to be suggested that it be made a criminal offence in 1976 and that that Member shall have to carry the penalties of the criminal law because of what he did, properly advised, over 11 years ago, it would be grossly unjust. It might become just if it had been a criminal offence then and he had escaped criminal liability only because there was an immunity in respect of Members of this House. That is the difference between the immunity and the fact that it is not a criminal offence.
Perhaps I may illustrate the point. If I make a speech here which is defamatory and incites violence, I may be in law guilty of the offence of criminal libel but I could not be prosecuted for

criminal libel because of the immunity conferred by the Bill of Rights, but I have committed a criminal offence. What I am arguing is that if a man accepted money to make a speech in the House on behalf of his client in 1965, he had not committed a criminal offence. There was no question of immunity. There was no criminal offence. The same would be true if he were a journalist in 1965, or now, and if he were an independent, freelance journalist—not an agent or an employee. If he took money in order to write an article in a particular way, again, he would not have committed a criminal offence. It is wholly wrong to say that Members of Parliament are above the law because they did what was not a criminal offence. It would be like saying that because I walk across Westminster Bridge I am above the law. Of course I am not. I am free to do that, because it is not a criminal offence to do it.

Mr. Abse: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Lyon: I shall give my hon. Friend his opportunity shortly.
It is essential to keep that distinction absolutely clear, both because one is tarred by the suggestion that Members of Parliament are above the law and also because it makes such a vital distinction about what we do about anyone who conducted himself in this way when it was not a criminal offence.

Mr. Abse: As I understand it, my hon. Friend is suggesting that if, in 1965, an hon. Member received a bribe to influence Parliament, in fact it would not be a criminal offence. With that I agree. However, it would mean—indeed, this is the purpose of the Select Committee—that if such an unfortunate finding were made available, this House of Commons would be able to send that man to prison, would be able to expel him, and would be able to do all these things. As the House of Commons is able to do that now in relation to an action that was improper some years ago, why does my hon. Friend draw back from our being able to frame a proper criminal charge in respect of an act taking place the same number of years ago? Why is he so squeamish about this so-called retrospective element? Does not such an attitude inevitably corroborate the view of the


public that an endeavour is being made to grant the hon. Member an immunity from criminal law?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I entreat hon. Members to make their interventions as brief as possible.

Mr. Lyon: if my hon. Friend had allowed me to do, I would have developed the argument in a way that would at least have attempted to answer his question. It is the kernel of what I want to say.
If the hon. Member who committed this act in 1965 had not committed a criminal offence, the question arises whether he had committed a breach of the rules of order of this House or, as the motion suggests, had acted in a way which
was inconsistent with the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its Members.
Personally, I find it reprehensible for any Member, in the course of his parliamentary duties, to conduct himself for payment from an outside person or body. I believe it wholly wrong that that should take place. However, it is not inconsistent with the rules of this House provided that he discloses his interests at the appropriate moment. It is not entirely clear—this is a matter that the Select Committee will have to go into—what is always the practice in relation to the disclosure of interest.
When I came into the House in 1966 I was very conscious of the fact that some Members frequently spoke in the House, and particularly asked Questions, about matters in which they had a business interest although they did not disclose such an interest. The standards were much looser then than they are now. Now, that would certainly be regarded as reprehensible. Then, it was not so reprehensible. It may be that it was, or was not—It is a matter for the Select Committee to decide—a breach of the rules of the House and a contempt to fail to disclose an interest in such a circumstance. However, if the hon. Member had disclosed his interest in such a circumstance, it would have been neither a criminal offence nor an offence against the rules of this House.
Therefore, contrary to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool, it would be wholly wrong, 11 years later, to try to make it such reprehensible conduct that the hon. Member was guilty of an offence and deserving of punishment. It is this that is at the root of this investigation.
The question then arises whether the investigation by the Select Committee should be in public. I must confess that the argument put forward by the Prime Minister and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) is extremely powerful. I am much persuaded by it, because it is true that what the Press is looking for is dirt.

Mr. John Mendelson: I have followed my hon. Friend so far in the point that he has developed. However, if a Member in 1965 had been receiving payment from a person outside the House and that person himself had been following criminal pursuits, would not the acceptance of money from such a person change the situation?

Mr. Lyon: With respect, it would not have made any difference at all. The mere fact that a man who offers money to influence a Member of Parliament in the conduct of his parliamentary duties is also in other respects—not in this respect, but others—conducting himself in a criminal way, would not make any difference to the question of the criminal liability of the Member of Parliament, or, indeed, to the question of the payment of that kind of money to the man himself.
Returning to the question of publicity, I was saying that I thought that what the Press was concerned about was getting some dirt, and that if it got the dirt, it would use it, and use it even in relation to a person who might be innocent but might be named. There is the gap, referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, between the allegation and the refutation of the allegation by the Committee at a later stage. In that gap a man's whole career may be wrecked. We are all aware of that, and anxious to avoid it. That argues against publicity.
On the other hand, what we are dealing with here is not a completely new and unexpected revelation of alleged dishonourable conduct by a Member of Parliament. This is a matter that has been


canvassed in the Press for years, in which almost everything that can be known about the conduct is already known, including the allegation against three Members of Parliament specifically and, in general, against another five Members in relation to a particular list. Therefore, in the course of the evidence that will come before the Select Committee, we are not likely to hear something that has not already been put before the public in one form or another. It will look extremely suspicious to members of the public if, when the report is published, there is reference, for example, to one Member of Parliament but not to the others who have already been named in public accounts of what Mr. Poulson did.

Mr. Jay: Surely it may well be that people of whom at present we have no knowledge will come forward to the Committee and make allegations that are quite apart from those which have already been made.

Mr. Lyon: In theory, that is correct.

Mr. Jay: It has happened.

Mr. Lyon: It happened in the case of the Lynskey Tribunal, which stemmed from a sudden allegation canvassed in the Press that precipitated a tribunal of inquiry. We have heard something that has been canvassed in bankruptcy proceedings and in successive criminal proceedings. A whole lot of evidence has already come out. It seems unlikely in the extreme that we shall now find some members of the public coming forward to the Select Committee with information that they did not want to produce at an earlier stage to the police or anyone else involved. The whole matter has been canvassed so widely that almost any member of the public who had anything to say about the matter has now already said it.

Sir M. Havers: One of the problems is not whether allegations have already been investigated but the succession of cranks whose evidence has been examined and found to be empty. Because they are obsessed, these cranks will continue to repeat their allegations and demand to be heard by the Select Committee. That evidence will then be smeared across the front pages of the Press, how-

ever hard the Select Committee tries to stop it. Surely it will be impossible for the Select Committee to sieve what is put before it.

Mr. Lyon: If it has been sieved already, it has been done in a way that has allowed some of the flour to get out into the public arena. There has already been some public coverage of allegations against Members, apart from the three who have been so widely named. It seems unlikely that others will be named. However, let us consider the position of one of the list of eight whose names have appeared in the Press—a Member whose name has not been so widely canvassed as the names of the three. If nothing is said about him by the Select Committee in its final report, because it is thought that he is completely innocent and, having regard to the Leader of the Opposition's definition of relevancy, that the charges against him are not relevant, it will look to the public as though something has been hidden that should be disclosed, and that man's name will be besmirched.
I have in mind the Denning Report, which followed on a particularly notorious case. Lord Denning tried to deal with all the wilder allegations against certain Members of Parliament and certain Members of another place—allegations that he regarded as unsubstantiated—by preserving their anonymity but to some extent describing them. For years afterwards there was a flurry of rumour, innuendo and suspicion against all sorts of Members, regardless of whether they were the actual persons, because people were speculating on the identity of the anonymous persons. That is the situation that may arise if all the evidence is not produced.
I was rather attracted to the way in which the Leader of the Opposition put her case. I think it is right that if all the evidence that comes before the Committee is published at the same time as the report of the Committee, the best will have been obtained. That may not be perfect, but it will be the best we can do. That will mean that the allegation will have been made and repudiated then and there in the same document. However, I disagree with the right hon. Lady in thinking that that is what the motion


will achieve. The fifth paragraph of the motion simply refers to the production of
all such … evidence … as … shall appear"—
that is, to the Committee—
to be relevant and such as may fairly be taken into account
That is clearly much less than the word "admissible" that the right hon. Lady quoted fom "Erskine May". As she indicated, she does not want the evidence published against a person who is found to be innocent. In general, I accept that principle, but for the reasons I have argued I believe that it would be wrong in this instance. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that the proper procedure is that all the evidence should be published—all the evidence that is admissible in the "Erskine May" sense—whether or not it is against a person who is found to be innocent. I believe it should be published at the same time as the report. That would remove most of the sting from any allegation.
As there is no motion on the Order Paper that would allow that to be done, I am not quite sure how I can vote at the end of these proceedings. If the Government agrees to amend in the way I should like the matter to be dealt with and as the right hon. Lady said she would like it dealt with, I shall be satisfied, but otherwise I shall have to vote against the fifth paragraph. If I am placed in that position I shall have to vote for the Liberal amendment or for my hon. Friend's amendment. Of the two, I think that probably the least damaging is the Liberal amendment. I shall probably have to vote for that.

The Attorney-General: Perhaps my hon. Friend will take into account that it is quite impracticable to suggest that the Committee should publish only such material as is both relevant and admissible in the technical, legal sense of what would be admissible in a court of law. It must go further than that; it must go to the point of being able to lay before the House such material as is not, for example, sixth-hand hearsay—material that is totally scurrilous though relevant and which no Committee would consider for one moment as being of probative value. It is that sort of material that is contemplated in the wording that has been used. I hope that my hon.

Friend will agree that if one were to cut that down so that only what is admissible in a court of law were reported to the House, the public would certainly feel that something was being covered up which should be disclosed.

Mr. Lyon: I did not use "admissible" in the sense in which my right hon. and learned Friend used it. I used it not in the technical sense of criminal evidence but in the sense in which "Erskine May" uses it, as quoted by the Leader of the Opposition. I used the word only in the sense that it is admissible before a Select Committee. That is not out of order by the rules of the House. It would be inadmissible in a court of law, because it might be hearsay or even scurrilous. If that kind of suggestion is to be made against a Member before the Select Committee, my assumption is that it has already been made. If I am wrong about that, I am certain that it will be made after the Committee's report has been produced and that somebody, somewhere, will want to get it into the Press. Therefore, it is better that the Committee should hear it and should tell the country that it has heard it so that all the allegations are made in public.
The Committee should then say "Having considered all the evidence, we, the peers of the people against whom the allegations are made, say that we find that this is unsubstantiated." If that is done, I am sure that it will allay public suspicion and get us away from any suggestion—a suggestion which the Press will undoubtedly make if we produce only part of the evidence—that something has been covered up. I am sure that that is the best way of dealing with the matter. I am prevented from voting for a motion that contains that provision, and I am bound to choose between the two amendments that have been put forward.

Mr. Hooson: One difficulty with publishing the evidence is the scurrilous piece of evidence which reads well but which the Committee rejected because it thought the man who gave the evidence was a liar. The hon. Gentleman knows from his experience at the Bar that evidence in cold print gives a totally different impression from evidence heard by the Committee. That might cause difficulty for both the individual and the House

Mr. Lyon: I can see that that argument could be made, but I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman should make it, he having moved the amendment. According to him, the evidence should be heard in public. My suggestion means that the evidence will come out at the time when a refutation can be made, so that the public can judge between the two. It is naive to think that it will not come out at some stage if it has not already come out in public debate. It is naive to think that a person who might at first sight appear to be speaking the truth will not use an opportunity to go to the Press and make public his allegations after the Committee's report has been published. Although in theory one can take the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North I argue that we are dealing with allegations that will come to public notice anyway, and that the best we can do is to bring them to public notice as quickly as possible and have them refuted.

Mr. David Weitzman: Suppose a completely idle and worthless allegation is made, which the Committee rightly disregards. If that allegation is included in the report, will not people say that there is no smoke without fire?

Mr. Lyon: There is that danger, but I am certain that if the allegation has not been made in the Press already it will be made in the Press after the Committee's report.

Mr. Carlisle: I am totally in agreement with the first three-quarters of the hon. Gentleman's speech—so much so that I have decided not to make the same speech immediately after him—but I draw different conclusions. Surely, with respect, "admissible", in these terms must be what is generally admissible in the courts. We are talking about people's reputations. As, to be admissible, evidence first has to be relevant, why does the hon. Gentleman find "relevant" and "fairly taken into account" more objectionable than "admissible"?

Mr. Lyon: Precisely because it is clear from the interchange between the Leader of the Opposition and myself that she did not take it in that way. Indeed, it

cannot be taken in that way. "Admissible", in law, means admissible according to certain tests, and the major test is: is it relevant to the specific charge brought before the court? That cannot be true in an inquisitorial system such as the Select Committee will have to adopt, because there is no charge and no specific allegation of dishonourable conduct.
All that can be said is: is it generally relevant to the Poulson business? In that respect we have to distinguish between "relevant", in the sense that the Committee finally will come out with a judgment about the conduct of a specific Member of Parliament which it may find dishonourable, and in the sense of allegations against another Member of Parliament which the Committee dismisses when it finds him totally innocent and which it does not want to disclose because of the feeling that may be engendered that there is no smoke without fire.
In one sense the allegation is relevant because it is an allegation about a Member of Parliament in relation to his conduct with Mr. Poulson, but in another sense it is not relevant because the Committee will finally adjudge that the Member of Parliament is wholly innocent and the allegation is without substance. In the first sense, I would be happy to take "relevant". In the second sense, I would not, for the reasons stated. The allegations will become public and there will be the danger of a feeling of cover-up unless all the evidence is known.
Therefore, I must take the view that all the evidence must come out, either in the way I have indicated or by being taken in public.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I hope I shall not strike a jarring note by saying that, whatever else may happen, I hope that the Committee we seek to appoint will not make such heavy weather of its task as the House is making of the debate. Some of the speeches we have heard have not been uniquely helpful. In general, the longer they have been, the less helpful, so I shall try to be brief.
The House has agreed that this is an unhappy business and that something must be done about it. Whatever we do about it will not be perfect—we are


apparently in similar mind on that—but we have to get on with whatever we do. None of us wants to go through all this again, so those who told us that there may be room for a change in the law struck a receptive chord.
If there is any danger of trial by newspaper we should remind ourselves that the only people who benefit from trial by newspaper are newspaper men. It should not he our purpose to advance that cause. We should also remind ourselves that whatever we may do or say on this occasion will not have the effect of raising the reputation of Members of Parliament to supreme heights in working men's clubs. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), even if the report were wholly satisfactory, would go about the working men's clubs explaining what splendid people Members of Parliament are and how terrible it is that they should have been maligned.
It is in the nature of things that we are viewed with suspicion. We should not mind that because it is part of the price we expect to pay for such power and privilege as we have, and it is an essential feature of the democratic system.
Let us not suppose that whatever comes out of this arrangement will be perfect, but let us try to achieve some limited objectives clearly and cleanly. It is unfortunate that there has been talk of whitewashing. I am astonished to hear that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) is contemplating supporting the Liberal amendment, especially after hearing the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who moved it. However unhelpful the talk of whitewashing may have been, the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman for Montgomery made me wonder how he dared to be content to be nominated a member of the Committee. However, that is between him and his conscience, not to mention his party.
Can we not at least give the members of the Committee who are accepting this heavy responsibility on our behalf some advice which they may find it helpful to follow? I sum up as follows. The Committee should try to do its work as quickly as it can so that there is no long-drawn-

out inquiry and no prolongation of this affair, which has already gone on far too long. The evidence that the Committee brings to us should be clear and clearly relevant. The Committee should prepare its report in the knowledge that the House wants to make up its mind as quickly as possible, deal with it with the maximum dispatch and never have to go through all this again.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I thought we were to discuss a motion relating to the moral conduct of Members of the House in relation to carrying on their parliamentary duties. The more I listen to the debate the more it becomes clear that we are talking about the definition and interpretation of rules contained in "Erskine May". I refer especially to the extraordinary speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon).
I understand that we are getting to a simple, clearly defined position, which is that the Committee should look at certain allegations. It might find, to take a hypothetical example, that a Member had accepted £500 in pound notes in return for organising Lobby facilities. Alternatively it might find that a charity with which he was associated had been given thousands of pounds because he had buttonholed a Minister in the corridor. The Committee, bearing in mind the rules contained in "Erskine May", would examine those allegations and, if it found them proved, might well say "That is not a crime and it is not against any of the rules set out in 'Erskine May' either." It would therefore presumably give a box of chocolates to the two hon. Members concerned.
Are we to be told, if the conduct of those hon. Members is such as I have outlined, that the Committee will say "There has been no crime. No rule set out in 'Erskine May' has been broken. It is scandalous that people should have suggested that the conduct of these Members was less than that which is required of the House." Some of us may find it difficult to understand the precepts and definitions in "Erskine May", but we know corruption and immorality when we see it. It is to be hoped that the Committee will know corruption and immorality when it sees it.
The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are much older than I am, but I was distressed at the way in which the generation gap expressed itself here today. People of my generation—and this applies to an even greater extent to people of a younger generation—will not see this as an open and an independent inquiry. They will see it as a cover-up. Whether it is or is not a cover-up does not matter. Not to understand that is to display either supreme insensitivity or astonishing ignorance. It is because I do not believe that the two Front Benches are full of astonishing ignorance that I can only conclude that it is extreme insensitivity.
The closed society is once again closing its doors to full and proper public scrutiny of public affairs, and the idea that democracy is government of the people by an elite sprung from the people appears to be gaining substance in this debate.
It was depressing to hear the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition say that there was not widespread disquiet about what had happened over the conduct of Members in relation to the affairs of Mr. Poulson. I do not want to indulge in semantics and seek to define what "widespread disquiet" is. However, there is a resigned contempt for politicians on behalf of the public. Not to realise that is to run away from reality. One realises from talking to people in factories, in shops and in one's own home that it is the resignation to the contempt that is so appalling. People have almost reached the stage where they are saying to themselves "You blokes make a bit on the side. You do favours for people and make a bit of money. That does not matter any more: we expect it. Just continue to do so. It does not matter." To say that there is no widespread disquiet is to misunderstand the public mood over this issue.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: What is the difference between a man taking money to represent the business interests of a person and disclosing that in the House and a man taking money to represent the business interests of a person and not disclosing it in the House, apart from the fact that one is a breach of the rules and the other is not? The first is apparently

entirely unreprehensible whereas the other is entirely reprehensible.

Mr. Sedgemore: I should find both of those forms of conduct open to some criticism. I thought that that was the substantive point with which I opened my speech.
There was great laughter when someone uttered the word "maturity" earlier. I thought that we were supposed to have the oldest and most mature democracy that existed, but it seems, by having this form of inquiry, that we are saying that our democracy does not have the strength and the resilience to stand a full and open public scrutiny of the affairs of Members. I do not believe that.
In any event, assuming that we have, as undoubtedly we are to have, this particular form of inquiry, there seems to be two matters which we should examine. The first is that which refers to the publication of that which is deemed to be relevant and such as may be fairly taken into account. Again, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were extraordinarily depressing when they interpreted those remarks. The Prime Minister said that the Committee, when it reported, shall not report really scandalous remarks.
I immediately asked myself what a really scandalous remark would be. My mind turned to the Watergate inquiry. I thought that, if early in the Watergate inquiry someone had said "The President of the United States is engaged in a cover-up", that would have been a scandalous remark and, presumably, would be the sort of scandalous remark which the Committee in its wisdom will exclude from its report.
Then I heard the Leader of the Opposition say "We want only evidence that is truly evidence." That is a great statement for the lawyers to examine in years to come. She was saying "We want only evidence which in the opinion of these 10 white men is truly evidence", which is an even more extraordinary statement.
Then the right hon. Lady got herself caught up in a convoluted lawyers' discussion about what is "relevant" and what is "admissible". I should have thought that the public, had they been here and heard her talking for 20 minutes, would wonder what sort of


world they were in. I thought that we were discussing a simple concept, one of public confidence.
That point relates back to the other matter to which I take extreme exception, which is that no one other than members of the Committee shall be present at its deliberations. I take exception to that on three grounds. First, it seems to me that in the last resort the public, if they are to be satisfied with the inquiry, have to satisfy themselves that on the evidence that the Committee heard and that the House will consider they somehow could or would have had the opportunity of reaching the same conclusion.
How can the public, still less the House, say that they have had the opportunity of reaching the conclusion which the Committee will reach? Anyone who has practised in a court of law will know that what comes out in the transcript does not tell half the story. It is the manner and the demeanour of the witness which is important. For instance, was a man who does not normally fidget, in fact fidgeting when he gave his evidence? Was a man who is normally cool when talking, hot and perspiring when he gave his evidence to the court? When reaching its decision, a jury has to decide on the conduct, bearing and demeanour of a witness.
The public should be given the opportunity of seeing for themselves. Most of them will not be there and most of us will not be there, even if the proceedings are open. However, the proceedings should be open so that we and the public have the opportunity of weighing up what a witness says.
Reading the transcript will be no adequate substitute. I have rarely been in a case in which a man who has pleaded not guilty has entered the court and said "I had a wicked intent. I intended to murder the deceased. I hit him over the head with a hammer." The accused answers as many questions as he can with a plain "Yes" or a plain "No". The transcript shows answers of "Yes" or "No" to words uttered by counsel. How can any member of the public or Member of the House make up his mind about the probative and evidential value of such answers? We are now talking about Members who can give

skilled and plausible answers. We are not to be there to see the manner in which they give those answers. Therefore, any attempt by the House after the inquiry is over to evaluate the evidence is almost bound to fail.
I rarely find myself in agreement with anything that the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Rees) says, but he was right when he said that he does not like dealing with such matters second hand. I do not like dealing with such matters second hand either.
The second reason I object to this form of inquiry at which neither we nor the public can be present is that evidence begets evidence and the publication of evidence begets evidence. In this case a witness might present a line of argument which is known to a person or to an organisation or to a newspaper—it may be the Observer; it may be another newspaper—to be wholly false. If that line of argument were made public, that other person or organisation might well be prepared to come forward and give evidence. Of course, it might be that the other party would be prepared to come forward with evidence anyway. As the inquiry unfolds there is a chance that the evidence given will produce more and relevant evidence for the Committee to consider.
The issue is straight forward and simple—it is one of public confidence. It is not a question of people like me standing here and impugning the motives of the Committee. We are talking of the public's confidence. If we are to have any credibility we should show that as a House we are prepared to adopt the most scrupulous and the highest standards when investigating the conduct of our own Members. This inquiry cannot be described as open or independent. It is not to be exposed to the public gaze which it so desperately needs.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. John Ryman: I support the Government in establishing a Select Committee although I appreciate that there are many imperfections in the type of machinery that has been canvassed. In particular I want to refer to some of the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr.


Rees) on the practical considerations governing the working of the Committee. The Attorney-General has already helpfully intervened to explain some of the difficulties.
The most fundamental difficulty has not yet been mentioned. It is said that the difference between the Select Committee procedure and a trial in a court of law is that in court the allegation is specified in advance and that Members appearing before the Select Committee will have to answer questions without knowing in advance the allegations made. Surely before an individual hon. Member is interviewed by the Committee he can be told by means of documents, broadly speaking, the nature of the questions that he will be asked. An exhaustive list will not be needed but he could be told the broad nature of the allegations which are to be made and the area of questioning that he will experience. No one has suggested that such a procedure will closely resemble that on indictment or proceedings in a civil court but it would be helpful for hon. Members to know as precisely as possible the type of questions that they will have to answer. There will of course be hints before hand about what they will be called upon to answer.

The Attorney-General: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for making that point. If I overlooked it I apologise, although I did not think that I had. In broad terms I hope that what my hon. Friend suggests will happen. But I was trying to explain that the particularity of charges in a court of law remain the charges throughout. In this case there is a broad area at the beginning which may change as the evidence proceeds.

Mr. Ryman: I am obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend and I am glad to hear him express that view. Although circumstances may change during the hearing of the Committee, it cannot be said, as has been suggested by hon. Members during this difficult and distasteful debate, that the hon. Members concerned will have no idea of the allegations against them. The guts of the matter is that hon. Members appearing before the Committee will know perfectly well all the allegations against them.
Shorn of all language and trimmings, it is alleged that, while no criminal offence

has been committed because no criminal offence exists to deal with such a situation, these hon. Members being investigated by the Committee are guilty—and it is for the Committee to say whether they are—of conduct involving grave moral turpitude which brings them within the ambit of the motion on the Order Paper. It would be artificial to say otherwise. Many of the points that have been made, particularly by lawyers, indicate the legal and practical difficulties but they do not detract from the fundamental reality that we know full well what the whole thing is about.
My next two arguments have not been touched upon before. I was horrified to hear the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) say that what really matters is that the issue should be dispensed with as quickly as possible and that speed was of the essence. I appreciate the hon. Member's anxieties but I cannot think of anything more disastrous than to rush through this inquiry in an effort to arrive at finality as quickly as possible. A most careful inquiry and the utmost scrutiny of the evidence before the Committee is needed. Any talk of haste or hurry is wrong.
The other matter which has not been made sufficiently clear is the lack of similarity between this and the Boothby case. They are not alike because the allegation in the Boothby case involved one specific matter of non-disclosure. Here we are dealing with a wider and more complicated situation. It would be wrong simply to compare this with the Boothby case.
We have to appreciate that the machinery, imperfect though it is, is the best available in the circumstances. I fully endorse the pleas by many hon. Members for the Government to introduce early legislation to deal with the obvious gap in the law. It is astonishing that this situation can arise and not be the subject matter of a criminal offence as the law stands. Pending further legislation to deal with the gaps in the law, the Select Committee is the best available machinery.
One of the vital questions is whether the Committee's deliberations should be in secret, in public or part secret and part public. I represent a constituency in the North-East of England that has


had its fair share—or unfair share—of adverse publicity on the corruption issue. I sense that the mood of the North-East and constituents of mine and of other hon. Members in the region would be wholly dissatisfied by a totally secret hearing. Whether or not there is an intention to whitewash or cover up, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) was right, and he echoed the feeling of the country, when he said that the general public would be horrified if they were not able to know what was going on. Their attitude would be "This is a club committee dealing with members of the club alleged to have behaved improperly". If an allegation is made against a member of a club the committee sets its own rules and standards in deciding whether to suspend or expel a member. There is grave disquiet among the people, who fear that if the proceedings are wholly in secret they will be very unsatisfactory.
I shall not get involved in the niceties of what is relevant and irrelevant, what is admissible and inadmissible. Ordinary people do not think like that. They simply want to know what is going on and how a Member has behaved. They are not interested in legal niceties and fine debating points. They want to know whether the behaviour of any hon. Member has fallen below the standards he should adopt.
The Government should carefully consider whether the terms of the motion, which in effect prevent any publicity, are correct in the light of the anxieties expressed by many hon. Members. It is a difficult question for the Government, and there are many permutations, but the present position is profoundly unsatisfactory.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. J. V. Rooker: My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) restored to the debate some of the sanity which had been missing for the past two or three hours. The prime issue is the public's distrust of hon. Members and the public's disgust. That matter will not be dealt with under the terms of the motion. I intend if possible to vote against the first paragraph, because my amendment seeking to widen the inquiry was not selected. Therefore, I have no

choice but to vote against. Given the present widespread distrust of Members, it is indefensible to limit the inquiry to matters appertaining to the activities of Mr. Poulson. There is plenty more meat to go at, and the public know it.
What happens if, for example, evidence on other matters comes the Committee's way? That could happen by accident. People who do not understand the motion but who know that there is an inquiry on corruption and bribery of Members of Parliament might write in about other matters. Does the Committee just put such evidence on one side and forget about it? It cannot be dealt with if it has nothing to do with Mr. Poulson. Such questions should be answered, and they would have been answered if my amendment had been selected.
What happens if, a week after the Committee has begun its work, another newspaper, or perhaps the Observer again, brings up a totally different case but with the same sort of prima facie evidence? Must we set up another committee and have this debate all over again, with the same arguments and the mess that many hon. Members have got into over the legal niceties? That would not be satisfactory.

Mr. John Lee: I can give my hon. Friend an example of a matter that requires investigation in addition to the matters for which the motion provides—the allegation of bribery by Lockheed of a former Minister. As both the Prince Consort of Holland and a Japanese Prime Minister were involved, it would not be incredible if somebody in a high position in public life in this country were involved as well.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend helps me make my point. People outside the House could send in what they considered to be evidence, but an inquiry has not been allowed on that matter. However, that will not stop people sending evidence to the Select Committee on other questions. The inquiry should be widened, if only to stop the matter rolling on for years. Many hon. Members would wish the Select Committee's proceedings to be over by Christmas. Others would tell the members of the Select Committee to take their time and make sure that they do a good job for the next two or


three years—the remainder of this Parliament. That is the period for which the motion provides. When the report is published the matter will start all over again, with arguments about the evidence published by the Select Committee. This could go on for years, and lead to people raising other matters. We should get the whole thing over once and for all.
Like many hon. Members, I was surprised by the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). That he spoke at all is surprising as he is to be a member of the Select Committee. I believe it to be superior to that of many others set up to deal with such matters since I entered the House. The composition of the Committee reflects the composition of the House much more accurately than the Select Committee to inquire into the matter of the former right hon. Member for Walsall, North, John Stonehouse. That was a committee of bosses sitting on a former boss—right honourables to the last. On this Select Committee we have recently-elected Members, which is a good thing. It could be argued that there are too many lawyers on the Committee—we have had a real lawyer's debate today—but it could also be said that non-lawyers are not qualified to sit on the Committee. I would argue that we should not have the Committee anyway.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General made a telling remark in response to an intervention, when he said that this was a domestic matter and that the Select Committee was the way to settle it. That attitude is totally divorced from the public anger and frustration encountered by many hon. Members of all parties on the doorsteps in the three constituencies where there will be elections later this week. It clearly is not a domestic matter; it is a matter of supreme public concern. Whatever candidate we support, we have all met the attitude "You are all the same. You are all in it for what you can get out of it." The public can reel off one case after another, and we find it difficult to defend ourselves because we know—I shall name no names—that there are hon. Members here for what they can get out of it personally. It is a widespread feeling among the public, which

one meets on the doorsteps, particularly when canvassing during by-elections.
The public think that the subject of this debate is a disgrace, because they do not see the equity of Members of Parliament sitting in judgment on matters relating to Members of Parliament. Many hon. Members have mentioned the Police Act. The Police Commissioner for the Metropolis resigned, or will retire early, over a similar point. He deeply resents—

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Commissioner has not resigned. I am not trying to take away from the argument, but that happens not to be true.

Mr. Rooker: I accept what my right hon. Friend says, but there is a widespread impression that Sir Robert Mark feels very deeply on the matter. I accept that it was an error on my part. He has not resigned, but he is retiring early next year.
It is indefensible for us to argue that we can be judge, jury and prosecutor. I cannot defend that stance, and I am not prepared to do so to my constituents or in my local party.
On page 99 in the red-covered version of the Salmon Report we see the following passage:
With the most genuine respect to the Committee of Privileges and the Select Committee on Members' Interests, we do not consider that they provide an investigative machinery comparable to that of a police investigation.
I accept that the police have no power to investigate these matters under the criminal law. We know that the Select Committee's work will drag on, because we must remember that we are dealing with events that happened many years ago, and these matters are only now coming before the House and being subjected to a process of inquiry. Therefore, to that extent the work of the Select Committee is retrospective.
I believe that we should have used today as an occasion on which to debate the Salmon Report. Having debated that report and having expressed our worries as Members of Parliament, we could then, at the end of this week or early next week, debate a Government motion. Clearly, in a debate on the Salmon Report in its entirety we would have alluded to the


chapter relating to Members of Parliament. Therefore, the Government would not have had to place themselves in the position of tabling a long motion last Thursday. Incidentally, the result was that many hon. Members who wished to table amendments had to take those steps at 10 o'clock last Thursday evening, because we were away in our constituencies on the Friday. If the Government had allowed the House to debate the Salmon Report in full today, we would have had more time to think about the Government motion that would come later.
Many hon. Members have drawn attention to the fact that the Select Committee is to meet in private and have asked whether that fact will affect hon. Members' reputations. There are many thick skins among hon. Members, as is apparent from this debate. Many hon. Members would prefer not to have any inquiry.
In recent years there have been two cases that have raised interesting factors of relevance to this debate. A year or so ago the Committee of Privileges examined some allegations that were aimed at my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), concerning some of his comments on a radio programme. The Committee sat and reported—and never at any time was my hon. Friend called to appear before it. What happened was that the whole thing was done by correspondence. There is nothing in the present case to stop the Select Committee kicking off its proceedings on the first day, examining the terms of this motion, looking at a rough outline of the evidence that it might like to consider, and then reading a few newspapers, particularly the Observer. It could then write to certain Members asking questions.
The Committee could write to an hon. Member and say "We have read this letter and presume it is true. We assume that no fraud or forgery is involved. Will you say whether you declared your interest at the time?" The hon. Member may write back with the short answer "Yes", thus satisfying the provisions in "Erskine May", and that would be the end of the inquiry. It would have meant no appearance before the Committee and no examination of the Member concerned. I repeat that that very case has happened within the past two years, when my hon.

Friend the Member for Bassetlaw was not even called upon to appear before the Committee of Privileges.
The other example that is relevant to today's debate concerned the late Sir Gerald Nabarro, who was called to give evidence before a House of Commons Committee. I understood that that Committee was open; indeed, cohorts of hon. Members went upstairs to listen to the proceedings. They thought that was a right and proper thing to do, because they wanted to listen to what was being said. In that way they could listen to the cross-examination, weigh the answers, listen for the inflections in the voice, and all the rest of it. Those are matters that can be weighed by a jury in a court and they cannot be conjured up by reading a transcript. Those two cases that I have instanced seem to cut across many of the arguments about procedure that have been dredged up in this debate.
We have before us the alternative of publishing all the evidence. Even as a non-lawyer, I appreciate that the motion does not specify "all the evidence", in the true sense of that phrase. Nevertheless, the Committee will have to consider all the evidence, all the admissible evidence, and, indeed, all the relevant evidence—in other words, three entirely separate sets of evidence.
Clearly, we are not to get all the evidence. If I talk to somebody outside the House and say that we have considered all the evidence, he will take my remarks to mean that I am including all the evidence in respect of allegations made. That would include all the testimony put before the Committee. Whether that evidence were true, scurrilous or totally objectionable is beside the point. The point is that all the evidence should be put to the Committee so that its members may hear that testimony and adjudge it. I believe that that should happen. Clearly, the Leader of the Opposition disagrees with me, but she has got what she wants, because her views are reflected in the terms of the motion. There is to be great restriction on the evidence that will be published.

Sir Raymond Gower: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the wording of the motion refers to
all such … evidence as … shall appear to be relevant …"?


He surely would not want the Committee to release or indeed to seek evidence that was irrelevant. To that extent I imagine he will approve of the wording.

Mr. Rooker: That is the whole point of my argument. I would deeply resent it if somebody sent into the Committee evidence relating to me, and I should look for some form of redress.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Member would not get it.

Mr. Rooker: I expect that I would not get it, but at the same time I should want to see everything published.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: If a person is tried in a court of law only the relevant evidence is admissible and would go before the public. What the hon. Member is suggesting in this instance is that irrelevant evidence should be acceptable. That would be totally unfair to the person in question, including the hon. Gentleman if he were involved.

Mr. Rooker: It is a rare occasion when I attend a court of law, but shortly before last Christmas I heard remarks made in one court which were totally irrelevant to the proceedings and which destroyed the reputation of a Member of this House. Therefore, it is not true to say that a court will listen only to relevant evidence.

Mr. Sedgemore: If my hon. Friend asks for a transcript, that will be on it.

Mr. Rooker: I agree that that will be part of the court proceedings.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that the terms of the motion were unprecedented in their generality, but that is not the case. If the motion were made more general, so as to widen the matter from Poulson, that situation would be far more unprecedented than even the Prime Minister can contemplate in his wildest dreams, with all the evidence that he must have available to him. Even on the information that I have before me about other matters, I believe that the terms should be much wider.
My party fought the last election on a platform of open government. We said that we would reform the Official Secrets Act—although we clearly will not do that

next Session. But if we cannot be totally open in the proceedings and inquiries that this House sets up, what confidence will the public have, when we start to reform the law, that we will make the Government and public Departments more open?
Earlier, there was an argument about income tax returns. There is a good case for making available to public inspection everyone's income tax return. I know that that goes against the grain. People cringe when I say that. I see the expression on the Home Secretary's face—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member did not see the expression on my face. That subject is strictly out of order.

Mr. Rooker: There was an interchange earlier about conspiracy. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) raised the matter and the Attorney-General responded. A good case can be made for making all income tax returns available to public inspection. That is not unique. It happens in at least one Western country.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing that subject this evening: that is my point.

Mr. Rooker: I finish on the point of total secrecy. We live in a secret democracy—not a mature democracy. It ill behoves this House to continue that process and build upon it in our own internal proceedings, on what the Attorney-General called "domestic matters".

8.22 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: We are using a procedure which was last used in 1857 and it behoves both the Government and Opposition Front Benches who believe in the use of that procedure to justify it. In 1857, it was used for a Select Committee concerned with the Bank Acts. I can see why there should be secret Committees—

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so early, but he must get his facts right. He knows better than that. The last time that we had this procedure was in 1971, for the Committee on the Civil List, which was entirely in private. He and I were both involved. Leave of the House


was not given to hold the Committee in private, but in practical terms that Committee was in private.

Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I said "this procedure"—the procedure whereby the House forbids Members to attend. His intervention, if he will allow me to say so, was somewhat irrelevant, because in the end we both agreed not to sit in on that Committee.
I am talking about the procedure whereby Members and everyone else are forbidden to sit in. It was used in 1857 for a Select Committee to consider the revision of the banking laws of the United Kingdom, the Bank Acts. I can see why the House chose at that time to make that a secret Committee. A similar modern analogy is the secrecy that we attach to the Budget, even in the Cabinet until the last minute—for the simple reason that in such cases people can make money by knowing the proposals in advance.
But we are talking tonight about an investigation into some past activities. This Committee is not set up to make suggestions for the future. One thing which has worried me during these proceedings is the bad advice which it appears the Prime Minister is getting. I will mention in a moment other bad advice that he seems to have received, but on this issue he said that it was not customary for hon. Members other than its membership to attend the Committee of Privileges.
That may or may not be true in recent years. It is very difficult to prove, because no record is kept of the attendance of non-members of a Committee at any Select Committee. I suggest that whoever gave him that advice—he said that he understood it to be so and had been given advice to that effect—had clearly not recollected that the practice of the House is widely varied. Until about 1837, every hon. Member could attend every Committee and speak in it. Thereafter, with one interesting exception—the Committee of Privileges—they were not allowed to speak in a Committee, until we revived the practice for the Report stage Committee. But the Victorians, who precluded that right in 1837 for most Committees, allowed hon. Members for a time not only to attend but to speak

in the Committee of Privileges—a fact which seems not to have been conveyed to the Prime Minister.
I go that far back for precedents because the Government and the Opposition have themselves gone that far back—to 1857—to find this procedure. I do not know whether they realise the full peculiarities of a secret Committee, with documents carried in through doors in little green bags and things like that. They have set up this Committee under an ancient procedure a Committee which is entirely secret.
Again, I do not know whether they realise some of the peculiarities or not, but why did this happen? It happened in the first place because many years have passed before a matter which may or may not have been a breach of the privileges of this House has been raised before us. Some confusion has been caused by Lord Justice Salmon. His remarks in his report have been taken by people who do not understand this issue to imply a series of things. The first thing that they are taken as implying is that anyone who is corrupt in this House is not guilty of a criminal offence. That is simply not true. I twice said that to the Prime Minister on the occasions last week when we discussed it, and on both occasions, clearly misadvised, he said that it was not necessarily a criminal offence.
This House of Commons has the power to imprison people, rather a weaker power than the House of Lords—

Mr. Alan Clark: In the tower.

Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman should not make silly interruptions. If he looked it up, he would find that it is Wormwood Scrubs to which prisoners can be sent. The condition of the Clock Tower is not such that people would use it nowadays. The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right.
This House has the power, slightly limited, to imprison only for the Session—instead of for any period of time, as the House of Lords can do—and it does not have the power to fine, which the House of Lords has. There are various difficulties connected with the jurisdiction of this House, but it is a criminal jurisdiction. To say that someone has not committed a criminal offence because


it is a contempt of this House—if anyone has—is quite wrong.
But these difficulties could have been cleared up years ago. There was a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament on Privilege. It was the last Joint Committee to consider this issue. The only two people still alive and in this House who were on the Committee are the Attorney-General and myself. Therefore the Attorney-General is the one person who cannot claim not to know what was in it because he was one of the three people from this House who made the recommendations on what needed to be changed in the law of privilege. If one of those changes in the Joint Committee's First Report is not made, I do not see how this House can be broadcast because, by some quirk, the broadcasting authorities are not protected in the way in which the Press is protected in reporting our proceedings, and they will be sued for libel in the way in which we are not capable of being sued under the Bill if Rights.

Mr. Edward Lyons: My hon. Friend has referred to the powers of the Commons to imprison. Would he regard it as unconscionable if this House imprisoned one of its Members for an offence which would not be imprisonable when committed by a local councillor—so that, although there is the technical power, it would be improper to use it?

Mr. English: Quite the opposite is the case. If a Member of this House did something in this House exactly the same as a councillor in a council and we had the power to imprison him and did not use it, I would think that disgraceful, even if the councillor could not be imprisoned, because an offence committed here is far greater than that committed in a local council. However, that is a relatively small point.
The point at issue is that, during all the time that the Attorney-General has been considering this issue, nothing has been done to revise the procedure on the privileges of this House when anyone could have raised all these points. They were not dealt with by a succession of Governments. As I say, one which has not been dealt with will enable any broadcasting authority to be sued for libel if any of us makes a statement in this Chamber for which we cannot be sued and it is

repeated. The only alternative is for any broadcast to omit such statements. But none of them has been dealt with, yet the Attorney-General is one of the people who know precisely what those discussions were.
A lot of nonsense has been talked, but the first and most important question that we should ask is why the Attorney-General, as a Member of this House, never brought to the attention of this House any question of a possible breach of privilege or contempt of the House if he thought that there was one. That is a question which needs to be asked of him. As Attorney-General, he has the responsibility of deciding upon prosecutions. It is customary not to question him unduly on these matters. I think that they have been discussed only on formal motions before the House. But he also has responsibilities, as we all have, as an individual Member of the House, and he must be asked why, if he had knowledge of the possibilities of contempt of this House, he did not bring them to the House under the normal procedure. As a result of his not doing so, we have not had a normal consideration of this case by the Committee of Privileges.
It looks, therefore, as though someone, somewhere, is trying to cover up things and, because we have not had that normal procedure and because Mr. Speaker ruled the other day that it was possibly too late under our procedure to have it, we have to set up a special Select Committee. It is not the ordinary Committee of Privileges but a special one.
I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) will agree that one of the matters that are challengeable, if we have a criminal system, is any attempt suddenly to change a court when a particular case is brought before it. I think that my hon. and learned Friend would take a different view of actions in the High Court if we suddenly changed its membership just before someone brought a specific case before it. That is not consonant with natural justice. When we have a system of law which someone may have broken and, in the same way, when we have a Committee of Privileges with the rights of this House to investigate possible breaches of them, it is not consonant with natural justice either on behalf of this House, on behalf of the


public at large or on behalf of any possible defendant suddenly to change the court just before the hearing. It is not common practice and should not be done in this case. Nor is it right suddenly to change the procedure of the court. It is not right suddenly to change the rules of evidence if that is what is being done, nor to change the practice of this House which has been compiled over many centuries.
Even if we make the assumption, which I do not, that Members have been guilty of contempt, this is not the first time. If we believed that that would be the result, it would not be the first time in the history of this House. It has happened in every century over the 700 years that this House has been in existence, and there is a proper procedure through the Committee of Privileges and a subsequent resolution of this House for dealing with it and for penalising the offender, if there is one.
Why did not someone adopt it? It would have been much simpler and more believable if that had been done in this case. If the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is defeated, I shall therefore vote in the sense of my own amendment on the Order Paper, to leave out the paragraph of the motion that changes the procedure.
I believe that we should have referred the whole matter to the Committee of Privileges. I certainly do not believe in changing the ancient procedures of this House, particularly in a case such as this. There is a good deal to be said for changing our procedures, but we should do it as it is done with the law; we should do it in advance and not after we know about a particular case, as a sort of set-up, special job for that particular case.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: There are, I believe, three purposes which we ought to seek to accomplish in concluding this particular business and which are only imperfectly covered by what the Government are proposing to the House tonight. What is proposed puts a good many Government supporters, as the debate has shown, in very considerable difficulty. I dare say this applies to right

hon. and hon. Members in other parts of the House, too.
The first purpose must be to bring out the truth and to allay public concern about what actually happened. The second purpose must be to do justice and to see that fair play is exercised in relation to all individuals, including Members of this House. The third purpose must be to clear up the widespread anxiety about the provisions which enable Members of Parliament to exercise their duties.
I put the third point deliberately in that way because it has not yet been put in that way today. But it is the only way which is either relevant or historically correct. I think it is quite wrong for people to take over from newspapers many of the allegations current at the present time. Along with many other hon. Members, I have been in public life over many years now, and I do not believe that there is widespread corruption. I do not believe that many people in our public life are corrupt, whether in central Government, local government, the Civil Service or in public service generally.
But there is, unfortunately, a growing belief among well-meaning members of the public—supported by a good many people who are in a position to spread what I believe to be false views—that there is increasing corruption in our public life. The fact that there is this growing opinion ought to be recognised by the Government and by this House as a matter of the first importance. The fact that I do not believe that there is any significantly large body of corruption in our public life is irrelevant compared with this growing opinion among our people, because what people think matters much more than any individual assessment made by any of us in our own thinking and researches.
Against that background, Parliament over the years has developed the conditions in which Members work. I have always objected—as have other right hon. and hon. Members—to the term "privilege", to which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) referred in his interesting contribution. We cannot help it. It is a term that has been used for some time now. I have always objected to the term "privilege" being used because, as we all know, it is


not meant to be a privilege at all. It is to create conditions which safeguard the work of a Member of Parliament in the interest of his constituents. The hon. Member is safeguarded physically, as a person, on his way to Parliament. He is safeguarded against physical attack in doing work for his constituents. That was what was originally meant by privilege.
In exactly the same way it must be understood that this privilege, which allows a Member to act freely inside and outside the House in carrying out his parliamentary duty and acting for parliamentary purposes, should have the added phrase "on behalf of his constituents" or "on behalf of the general public". This privilege should never be extended to a Member acting on his own behalf, and that is the cardinal difference at the bottom of this whole problem.
Nobody has ever suggested, nor has it been held to be constitutional doctrine, that any hon. Member ever held, as a result of any part of a legal or constitutional convention, a position which was in any way the slightest bit different from that of any other citizen, apart from the limited function in his political life.
It is a confusion between the two which is involved here, and the public have every reason to be strictly condemnatory, even without knowing all the details, if they think any Member is deliberately confusing the two. As a body, we must be ruthless in exposing and condemning ourselves for any confusion of the two. That does away immediately, without any great difficulty, with the problems which have arisen in the course of the debate this afternoon.
One does not have to accept the deliberate exaggerations of the enemies of the parliamentary system, who feed all this propaganda—and it is highly organised in this country—against Parliament. It is based on little evidence, and most of it is completely unfounded. But in order to see that the enemies of Parliament do not succeed, Parliament has to make its contribution. The Government must give the lead, and the proposition they have put forward this afternoon has sadly failed to meet the point.
It would not matter that it will be difficult for a number of hon. Members who may have to appear and give evi-

dence and have their positions discussed if that were all that was at stake. But it is not just the position of individual Members which is at stake. Safeguarding the position and purpose of an hon. Member would be the only thing, if the other two purposes to which I referred earlier were not equally important.
We may have to make a sacrifice, and that sacrifice might be finding a form in which the public can be convinced that these exaggerated attacks on Parliament are wrong. I believe that the result of a wide, free and searching inquiry would produce very little that was bad for Parliament. Therefore I deplore the decision to use the Parliamentary Committee instead of a public tribunal to conduct the inquiry in the first place. In spite of all the disadvantages of tribunal processes I believe that the Government have taken the wrong decision. Having taken it, however, I think that this is not the moment for them to change course. Undoubtedly they have consulted some sections of this House. I do not know how widespread the consultations were but obviously there have been some and this decision has been made.
But they have confounded that decision by their reluctance to have at least the whole record published at the end of the Committee. I ask the Government now to amend their present intention. Anybody who listened to the debate would know that there was a marked difference in the interpretation originally given by the Leader of the Opposition and that given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. But the way in which the right hon. Lady started before the lawyers on her side got at her left little to disagree with. She went fairly wide, and the Government have yet to agree with that wider definition. The Government must say authoritatively at the end of the debate that all the evidence will be published, barring bad language under the definition of the late Mr. Justice Simon. If the Government can say that, many of us will feel a lot closer to them than we are at present.
There is the important argument that some of the remarks made about Members would be left in mid-air at the end of one afternoon. But at the end of the Committee there would be the possibility for everyone to be completely convinced since they would have been able to see


the whole record of everything that took place. I do not think that is too great a decision to take in view of the great advantages of avoiding the dangers that arise with allegations of secrecy which might involve allegations, quite wrongly based of course, of an intended cover-up—and I repudiate such an allegation as much as the Government do.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said the other day, the reputation of Parliament is at stake. No formulation of mine can be more serious than that.
There is also the urgent need for comparison between representation and self-interest. If under my original definition service to constituents and a wider service to the country were to be the yardstick that justified safeguarding a person and protecting his freedom of speech, there could be no room in that concept for personal gain or personal advantages. The two are separate and can easily be separated.
I do not expect that a lot of evidence of a criminal character will emerge. People are nervous that there will be a fair amount of evidence that is unattractive, but the nation is entitled to have unattractive evidence about its elected representatives. Unattractive evidence is part of the public contract that we enter into when we stand for election. It must be accepted along with the attractive evidence that we present on the platform or at public demonstrations or even at a football match.
I do not believe that anyone has it in his heart to make party capital out of this issue or to try to drive anyone into a particularly difficult position. Every hon. Member will support the creation of the best possible conditions for this old and important body to do its work. However, the Government have not acted correctly so far and they must improve their position to get our support in the Division.

8.50 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I found much of what the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) said wholly acceptable, but I did not agree with his conclusion. His suggestion of a tribunal to deal with this matter was extreme.
I have listened to most of the debate and I am concerned that the House is in danger of giving the impression that we are setting up an alternative to what the courts should be doing. Of course, this is not correct. That was obvious from the statement by the Prime Minister and has been confirmed by the Attorney-General.
It is clear that if any hon. Member had been criminally involved in this matter he would have been subject to proceedings in the courts. There could have been court action if it had been justified in this case.
I have heard it implied that hon. Members are somehow above the law. That is utter nonsense, but it would be most dangerous if such an impression got across to the public. I do not believe that people could gain that impression—unless the Press misreports what we are trying to do—because an hon. Member was recently sent to gaol for a considerable term. Hon. Members are brought before the courts for misdemeanours on many occasions. Like everybody else, we commit motoring offences. It is not true to suggest that we can escape the normal rigours of the law.
We are discussing this procedure because there may have been some misdemeanours. I hope that the media and the public will recognise this situation.
I, too, have difficulty in deciding whether the inquiry should be open or whether the Committee should follow the Government's suggestion and submit a report after a hearing. I concluded that the Government and my right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench were correct, for one reason. If it were not so, the hot-house which this place is would have a Roman holiday. There would be great exaggeration of everything said on every day that the Committee met. It is extremely doubtful whether, in those circumstances, the Committee could do its job properly.
When the report is published, the relevant evidence will be produced and printed. The hon. Member for Penistone said that he feared that what would have been said in a court would not be said to the Committee. The Committee would be very ill advised if it left anything out, even if it did cast a distasteful slur upon a Member of Parliament.
Every Member of Parliament should be subject to his peers in this place, and the House must be able to probe when it thinks that it is justified in doing so. The Select Committee is being set up to do just that. I have every confidence, and I hope that the country will have confidence, that the Committee will print what it thinks needs to be printed and that there will be no secrecy in the report. The point is that the Committee will be able to get on and do its job. Incidentally, I hope that it will do it with as much speed as possible and not prolong the matter. I think that it will be unnecessary to prolong it. It would be extremely dangerous for the House if it were prolonged.
The first principle is that this is a House of Commons matter, because whoever may have been concerned will have been cleared by the courts, as the Attorney-General has indicated. That is the first thing that we ought to make clear to the country. The second is that there will be no secrecy in the long run because the report will be published and both the individuals concerned and the House will be open in the testimony that is produced in terms of whatever investigation takes place.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: I think that there has been too much legalistic pedantry in this debate, and what I have to say is purely from the point of view of an ordinary person trying to cope with a rather difficult situation.
What we are purporting to set up is not a trial but an investigation. The Committee will have no power to convict or to impose sentences. It will not be conducting a legal process at all. It will be carrying out an investigation on behalf of the House. Indeed, its findings need not be accepted by the House. There have been many occasions on which the recommendations of Select Committees have been subsequently rejected by the House. That may occur on this occasion as well.
One or two important features of the procedure of the Committee have been touched on in the debate. In the first place, we ought to recognise that to the outside world this will not be an independent investigation. It will be an

investigation by Members of Members, and by any normal standards in the conduct of public inquiries this does not constitute an independent investigation of what, if anything, is wrong. Therefore, on that ground, it is all the more important that the Committee's work should be in public, not in private.
It has been argued that, somehow, the conducting of the Committee's affairs behind closed doors will ensure that speculation, gossip and malice will be less possible or, indeed, be made impossible. In my view, the reverse is true. There is nothing more conducive to speculation, gossip and malice than the holding of investigations in private.
Unless the investigation is conducted, as it were, entirely on another planet, there are bound to be incidental events—the calling of particular persons. the Committee suddenly deciding to adjourn or sit twice a week and so forth—which will be built up by people who have no good will in these matters as a basis for all kinds of malicious comment.
Indeed, secrecy could damage people who are entirely innocent. Let us take, for example, the possibility of an architect or county treasurer being invited by the Committee to give some purely technical evidence or advice, not in any way involving that person or any allegation of improper conduct. Whatever he said to the Committee, the fact that it was not reported and was not known could give rise to all sorts of speculation in that person's area or home town about why he was suddenly associated with Poulson. If, on the other hand, the matter were conducted openly, everyone would know straight away that that person had been invited simply to give advice on a technical matter on which the Committee needed elucidation.
Then there is the point that, so far as I know, this Committee's proceedings will not be subject in any way to any sort of sub judice rule. When a matter comes before the courts, there are rules relating to contempt of court, but in this case there will be no sub judice rule. At least, I know of no law or rule of the House that provides that there may be no public commentary on a proceeding of the House or a Select Committee. If that is so, secret inquiries, private discussions and private investigations can be the


subject of all kinds of private speculation, without any limit.
It has been argued that if the matter is conducted in public, cranks or people inspired by sheer malice can come to the Committee, or be invited to the Committee, and spin any yarn to the detriment of the character of Members of the House or other people—that any lie can be told and any allegation can be made, and, so the argument goes, as the matter is held in public it will be reported and, therefore, infinite damage can be done by people giving irresponsible or grossly untrue evidence to the Committee.
I should have thought that the House could deal with that situation, if it arose—which is unlikely—by its ordinary rules of conduct. I should have thought that a person who came before a Committee of the House and told blatant lies in the knowledge that the information given was blatantly untrue and given in bad faith, could be warned of a possible contempt of the House and dealt with in that way. I do not think that the possibility is a very likely one. I suppose that it could happen, but I should have thought that the judgment of the persons we are likely to appoint to this Committee would be such that they could distinguish between evidence that was necessary for elucidating the case and evidence that was based on sheer malice or stupidity.
I have no doubt that a great many hon. Members hope, as I do, that in the end the Committee will decide that nothing, or very little, improper had been committed, and that at the end of its investigations it will find that hon. Members who have been referred to in the Press and so on over the past few weeks have done nothing unworthy, nothing improper and nothing short of the standards that this House would expect.
However, in a situation in which the Committee sits privately, in secret, and publishes only that evidence which is thought by the Committee—the rather unfortunate words "by them" are included in the terms of reference—to be relevant, even if it finds at the end of the day that the persons concerned have done little or nothing improper, the public reaction will be even more to the effect that this is a cover-up operation,

that the matter has not been thoroughly investigated and that the House, in a nice cosy club atmosphere, has combined in a general conspiracy to see that nothing terrible happens to any of its own Members. By conducting the whole inquiry absolutely in public and publishing all the findings and all the evidence, those kinds of argument can be disposed of.
I agree that there are hazards, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) said. Some sacrifice might be required of individual Members or, indeed, of other citizens who may accidentally become drawn into the argument or the investigation. However, as my hon. Friend said, that is a price we must pay if we want an absolutely thorough and convincing inquiry into this matter.
It is regrettable that the Government did not see fit to appoint an entirely independent tribunal to look into this matter. That option has apparently been discarded. It has been decided that this is—to use another hon. Member's phrase—"a domestic matter". However, as we have embarked on this course, we must get rid of the neurotic obsession with secrecy and discharge our duty absolutely in public.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Edward Lyons: The hour is late and I shall not speak for long. Basically the argument is about disclosure and non-disclosure. In this House a Member can speak for money provided that he discloses. If he does not, the House takes a serious view. Basically the Select Committee will be concerned with whether there has been non-disclosure. In my view it is no use the House and the public getting terribly upset about Members taking money in this case when they do not get upset about Members taking money who disclose.
Perhaps we should consider whether we wish to proceed with the custom that enables Members who are elected by constituents to represent them and to take money to represent special interests. That seems to be the core of the evil and it does not matter really whether one discloses. Admittedly it is better that there is disclosure, but it does not remove the evil when we are elected to represent our constituents and not to represent special interests. It seems that


the Select Committee will do nothing to deal with that major and basic issue.
Another argument appears to be whether publicity has to be day by day or at the end when the evidence is published. Apparently there are those in the House who feel that the situation is disastrous unless we get publicity day by day whereas others take the view that publicity at the end is good enough. I should be in favour of publicity day by day if we had a system of cross-examination so that as fast as an allegation is put there is an opportunity for it to be tested and the counter-allegation or defence to be put. If that were done, the answer could be printed within a short time. That is not the position with a Select Committee as there is no cross-examination permitted.
Before the House changes its procedures to allow a Watergate tribunal system where 10 politicians, some of whom may like publicity, some of whom may have ambition and others of whom may not like Members of opposing parties, may appear before the media day by day, we should consider whether we wish to change the rules to permit the sort of thing that is likely to occur.
My hon. Friend the Member fox Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) says that this is an investigation and not a trial, but in my opinion he is playing with words. In effect, the Select Committee is a trial. If the Press were there day by day it would be even more of a trial. The penalty is loss of reputation, destruction of prospects and possibly the destruction of livelihood. Therefore, it is a trial in a real sense, but who has heard of a trial where there are 10 judges drawn from one's own body, judges who may have axes to grind? Why should the accused persons—and there is no doubt that those who appear before the Committee will be the accused persons, whether or not they have technically committed a crime—have to endure 10 people who possibly have axes to grind and who can deal with them in that way?
If we are to have publicity day by day, we should have a tribunal which permits cross-examination. If we are not to have publicity day by day, the argument for a tribunal is clear because there would be no incentive for a member of a tribunal to ask questions to the gallery when he would know that the evidence

would not be published for some months. With that knowledge the atmosphere is calmer. There is less of a tendency for the members of the Committee—namely, the judges—and the witnesses to say things that are dramatic merely to get a headline or a mention on the television news.
Given that the Government have eschewed the tribunal as a method of procedure, I must support the Government in saying that there should not be day-by-day publicity. When the Committee's report is produced, the evidence in full should be published simultaneously. I agree that there is a risk in doing that, but the evidence should be there for people to read. If there is a commitment by the Government to publish all the evidence simultaneously with the report, the argument that there is no publicity and that the Committee is acting privately loses a great deal of its significance. In those circumstances I should be even happier to support the Government.
If the House wants publicity it must allow the accused person the right to cross-examination day by day and the right to have counsel. Furthermore, in the American system which is being advocated committee members with no legal experience have counsel to guide them. That is not being suggested here. Before the House changes its rules to enable Members of Parliament to bask in publicity, it should see that they also have the benefit of professional advice.
In the American system, the senators have professional advice because they need experts to guide them in procedure. Some of the members of the Select Committee are lawyers, but others are not and do not possess legal expertise. Before we embark at half-cock on the American system—which is what day-by-day publicity means—we should think about that. Formal consideration and investigation by the House are needed before a changeover to the American system of open committees, television cameras and the Press. If the Press is allowed to be present, it is difficult to exclude other media, and that would bring us very close to the American system. One American tried to use such a committee to run for the Presidency. We are dealing with people's careers and reputations and should not embark on a new system of


that kind without a great deal of thought. I support the Government.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: The debate has gone on for longer than some of us expected. The whole House must be united in regret that such a debate as this is necessary and that we have been forced to set up an investigatory process. These events are always unpleasant. We go along with the Prime Minister when he said that the standing of Parliament requires that the allegations that have been made should be investigated.
I want to be fair to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), but he seemed to show rather less than his usual skill. For instance, he said that according to the motion it would be the duty of the Select Committee to make recommendations, but further study of the motion will reveal to him that the Committee is under no such duty; it merely has to report.
It appeared that the hon. and learned Gentleman had been put up to deploy an argument for which he had no heart, and that he was endeavouring to put some life in the notion that the Liberal Party was superior to all others, that it alone was against a cover-up and that it alone was anxious that all should be known. I do not believe, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman persuaded anyone who was not already of his opinion to espouse his cause. He might even have dissuaded some who previously held that view. The hon. and learned Member hardly helped the cause of the Select Committee, on which he himself is due to serve, by some of the remarks he made.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made a rather better speech than the hon. and learned Member who preceded him. He said, and went on saying, that he was suspicious, and he reiterated the idea that people outside would believe that we were evading the issue. If people outside convince themselves that we are evading the issue as a result of this debate and what we decide tonight, they will reach that conclusion for two reasons—partly because they are suspicious by nature and wish to reach such a conclusion, and partly because they have received the most liberal encouragement to do so by speeches such

as that made by the hon. Member for Bolsover and some of his hon. Friends.
I will not now pause to speculate on what exactly the hon. Member meant when he said towards the end of his speech that he and his hon. Friends would be obliged to get the matter resolved by some other tactic. That we shall leave to the future to unfold.
The right hon. Member for Battersea North (Mr. Jay), in perhaps the shortest speech of the whole debate, made one of the most powerful contributions of all. He reminded the House, as perhaps others should have done, of the really painful, unsatisfactory and unjust results of the tribunal procedure. I agreed with the right hon. Member completely and was very glad that he made that contribution, but I am sorry that it was not more widely attended to.
I am also glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) has been persuaded, both by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and by the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, that her previous doubts about the procedure adopted were unfounded and that she should support the Government's proposals tonight.
The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), who, unfortunately, is not in his place at present, made an interesting speech on quite another issue. That was whether we should adopt the recommendation of Lord Salmon in paragraph 311 and have new legislation. That is not the question with which we are faced today. That is a matter for the Government and for everyone in the House to make up their minds about in due course. For the moment we have, within the present framework of the law—adequate or inadequate—to decide what to do and we have to make that decision knowing that whatever conclusion we reach it will certainly not be perfect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) was, I am glad to say, persuaded by the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I do not think that there can be any justification, however, for harping on the point that in this case the Select Committee will be prosecutor, judge and jury. It will be nothing of the kind. There will be no criminal


cause before it. There will be no prosecution. This is an investigation being carried out at the behest of and on behalf of the House of Commons by a Select Committee of its own Members who, as far as I know, enjoy the trust and confidence of the House.
The Attorney-General helped us considerably with his advice, though I am bound to say that at the end he made two very surprising remarks. First, he announced that he went a long way with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, which seemed very surprising, as I had understood that they were on diametrically opposed sides of the argument.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on, I thought rather gratuitously, to endorse the Board of Trade inquiries which at least seem to me to be potential sources of very great injustice indeed. I hope that in future the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not go out of his way to confer the immense accolade of his blessing upon them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) made a refreshingly brief intervention which was to the point and which I endorse. The hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) surprisingly commented upon the generation gap. I had no idea that he was so young and that there was such a yawning gap between us. I thought that he was a rather bitter old gentleman, but it turns out that he is very young and well on the other side of the yawning generation gap in which I languish. One might have expected much idealism from him, but he expressed a great lurking cancerous suspicion and lack of any confidence in anyone on any side of the House. He gave a cynical example to his generation. Not all the young accept that 40 is young but I give him the benefit of the doubt. Today he gave a typical example of the most deep-dyed cynicism which might have been more suitable to someone twice his age who had experienced an unfortunate and unhappy life.
The hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Ryman) at least accepted that the Select Committee was the best machinery available. But he complained that it would be like a club committee dealing with allegations against a member and making its own rules as it went along. I am sorry

that we have lost his company but I did not think that there was a word in the latter part of his speech which could be made to stand up except by a mixture of prejudice and misunderstanding.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) was very regretful indeed about the whole proceedings. He said that there was after all plenty more to be got and he was very sorry that he would have to make do with suet an emaciated and meagre meal. He made it clear to the House that although he would be greatly offended if some slur came anywhere near himself, the idea that the Select Committee could be inhibited from giving further circulation to the merely scurrilous did not bother him.
The real worry that has emerged, particularly from the last speeches from the other side of the House, is whether the Committee should meet in secret. No one would deny that it is a difficult question hut we believe that the time lag between the allegation being made—perhaps baseless allegation—and the conclusion of the Committee is dangerous and exposes innocent people to great hazards. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made our view clear. We must retain some regard for the interests of the innocent. The standards of parliamentary conduct are of the greatest possible importance to us all. But let us remember that the proceedings that are contemplated are not the alternative to a criminal trial.
We are concerned, and so will be the Select Committee, with the conduct of Members. The question is whether by their conduct they injured the House of Commons, not whether they were guilty of criminal acts. That has nothing to do with it. We are concerned with the injury or otherwise sustained by the House.
I believe that the standards of parliamentary conduct will be better protected in an assembly the membership of which is widely regarded as a great privilege and in which the public can feel confidence that it is a protector of them and their rights and not merely the creature of a powerful Executive. I believe that the standards of Parliament, of this House, will be less safe if we allow ourselves to degenerate into an assembly where suspicion is assiduously fostered and unfounded charges are allowed to become routine.
We must also be particularly careful when we embark upon inquisitorial procedures such as the one we are now contemplating. The rules in all criminal proceedings are designed to hedge around and sustain the notion fundamental to the British constitution that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty. We must be careful not to jeopardise that in our haste to satisfy a public demand for a rapid clearing of the decks.
In this instance no one faces any defined charge, nor—and this is important—does anyone know that he is safe from smear or slur. Moreover, if the Committee were not to sit in secret and if it did not publish both the evidence and the conclusion together, innocent people could face pernicious attacks which they could refute only after a lapse of time.
Some comments have been made about the position taken up by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on the publication of evidence. As far as I am aware, her position is not changed in the slightest. What she requires is that there should be full publication of all the evidence that is properly put to the Committee. But she is anxious that there should be no unnecessary circulation of the unfounded or the purely scurrilous. That seems to me a perfectly reasonable, defensible and right position.
There is a need for special care in such courses of action as we now contemplate. We should take some encouragement from the good record of Select Committees such as this. We can be confident that if difficulties arise the Committee will be free to return to the House, and that is what it should do.
I should like also to make it absolutely clear that we have neither sought nor reached a bargain with the Government.

Mr. John Evans: Nobody believes the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Peyton: There are some people who are such strangers to truth that they find it impossible to believe anything anyone says. The House would have benefited if it had had the chance to hear the hon. Gentleman today, if only so that he unveiled his true character, but perhaps we are better off without that.
We have neither sought nor reached a bargain with the Government. We support the position shown by the motion on the Order Paper, which the Prime Minister explained today, because we think it right for Parliament and the public and because it offers at least a minimum of protection to the individual.
These occasions are sad and, happily, not all that frequent. Therefore, when they occur we must take them seriously and be seen to do so. But they are made sadder by the evident relish with which they are greeted by the few.

9.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): There is always a risk, when there have been four Front Bench spokesmen in a debate such as this, that the House may suffer by way of repetition, but in my view, having listened to the debate right through, there are some matters that need to be repeated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), fairly and in a non-partisan fashion, raised the subject of the good name of the House. We know from many newspapers that many people outside have become used to suggestions that Members of Parliament are "at the game", "on the fiddle" and so on. Those allegations are made and we have to take account of them in what we are doing. We must give our attention to the good name of the House. Some people talk about "the club", and "looking after themselves", and all the rest of it, and the time comes when all of us who are proud to be Members of this House should consider what is said about us outside and do something to correct it, in whatever way we can. Therefore, it is right that we should consider this matter, because it is a House of Commons matter.
Let me turn to the origins of the appointment of the Select Committee. It started on 19th October, when my right hon. and learned Friend, whose rôle in Government, whatever party is in power, is known to all, was asked whether the Director of Public Prosecutions had received the report
on the investigations into the affairs of Mr. Poulson and his companies; and whether he will make a statement.


That was not related to information merely gathered together over the years in an ad hoc fashion; it came from the Director of Public Prosecutions. My right hon. and learned Friend said that the report had been received, and added:
This investigation, which has been concerned solely with possible criminal offences and has exceeded in scope detail and time spent on it, any similar operation, is now complete. The police the Director of Public Prosecutions and the team of counsel retained to advise throughout the investigation have examined a mass of documentary and oral evidence and many allegations and rumours concerning the possible commission of offences
My right hon. and learned Friend said a little later:
Those participating in this investigation have now reached the conclusion, with which the Solicitor-General and I concur, that so far as concerns persons within the jurisdiction, there are not sufficient grounds to merit the commencement of any further prosecutions or continued inquiry into the possibility of obtaining further evidence of criminal offences."—Official Report, 19th October 1976: Vol. 917, c. 361.]
I think that needs saying, and certainly needs saying outside the House. That statement stems from a Law Officer of the Crown. The Select Committee was conceived in that way.
The hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Rees) mentioned the matter of the Observer. In 1972, under a previous Administration, the decision was taken that police investigations should take precedence over other investigations into the Poulson affair. Therefore, the present proposed Select Committee was not prompted by the Observer report.
As for the method that we use to investigate this matter, which is for the House of Commons, I would say to the House what other people who were around at the time have said—that it is not a matter for a tribunal of inquiry. The reasons have been given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). Other reasons were given in, to use the felicitous phrase of the Leader of the Opposition, the blue-covered Salmon Report. I believe that, on reflection, those who believe that there should be a commission of inquiry into this material, which has already been considered by the police and the DPP—leaving aside the question whether it was something new—will agree that that would be unwise.
The Prime Minister mentioned the Committee of Privileges and explained why it was thought better on this occasion to go for a Select Committee—a Select Committee in which, I concede, there will be no specific charge or charges and where the evidence will not necessarily be relevant. I raise those two points because they are two of the main reasons why I believe that the best time to reveal what is said to the Select Committee is at the end of the day.
The inquiry will be into matters concerned with the Poulson companies. That is why we chose the words:
That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the conduct and activities of Members of this House in connection with the affairs of Mr. J. G. L. Poulson".
One could have specified the "companies of" or "persons associated with" Mr. Poulson, but in my view those words are broad enough to take in any possibility. It is the Poulson affair that we are talking about now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) asked what would happen if evidence were brought forward relating not to Poulson but to other matters affecting hon. Members. This Select Committee is set up to inquire into the Poulson affair and its ramifications in this House, but if any one has any evidence affecting any other hon. Member—relating to contempt or anything else—the fact that we are talking about Poulson does not prevent my hon. Friend or anyone else, if he has any information or if information comes his way, from raising it in the usual way. But this is an investigation into the Poulson affair, and the motion is so drawn for that reason.
The motion goes on:
… to consider whether any such conduct or activities amounted to a contempt of the House"—
this is a paraphrase of Section 9 of the Bill of Rights—
or was inconsistent with the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its Members".
The Committee will be able to send for persons, papers and records. In the Yorkshire Post in my area today, Mr. Poulson is quoted as saying that he is prepared to come to the House. I would only say that if the Committee wants Mr. Poulson it will decide, not he, whether


he should come along. It is a matter for the Committee. It is then a matter for the Attorney-General, in consultation with it, what information he gives to the Committee.
Counsel can be heard if the Committee sees fit. It is certainly the Government's view that the right to counsel for those whose conduct is called into question would be a correct interpretation of the terms of reference.
I believe that it is right for the Committee to sit in private, for reasons which have been given, but what matters at the end of the day is that the information given to the Committee, oral and written, should be made available to the House. I will come to the point about relevancy in a moment, but on the question of secrecy being maintained until the report is published, I would say that the Committee will be sitting and investigating. If it feels that it cannot do its job properly it can always come back to the House and put its view to us. Before I come to the point about relevancy, perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) will make the point that he wishes to make.

Mr. English: My right hon. Friend has corrected himself. A Committee of Secrecy has not been used since 1857. All Select Committees meet in private, certainly to start with, and all of them have the power to decide whether to meet in public or in private, so that privacy in that sense is not secrecy, which is true of this one.

Mr. Rees: I accept that. I listened carefully to what was said.
A number of hon. Members have expressed concern about the word "relevant". That was put in for the reason that what we are concerned about is that it is possible that evidence will be sent to the Committee which has no bearing whatever on the cases. All of us who get letters from all over the country—especially as we play a more prominent part in public life—and not just from our own constituencies will know the sort of letters that will be written. All that we suggest is that the Committee should have the right not to publish that material. The Government are concerned to see—

and the Opposition have spoken for themselves—that all the evidence, oral and written, shall be published, but we are trying to protect the innocent from scurrility and material of that kind which I believe that no one in this House will want to see published.
At the end of the day, the report will be presented to the House of Commons. Then it will be for the House of Commons to decide. If anyone then feels that there has been a whitewash—and many people who believe that will have talked around—he will have the chance to put that view to the House of Commons.

Mr. George Cunningham: Once the motion has been passed, it will not be possible for anyone to establish authoritatively what the wording means. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will say what his understanding is on one specific matter. When he says that the evidence will be published, does he mean minutes of evidence, such as those published by a normal Select Committee, or does he have it in mind that the Committee will produce a summary of the material put to it and publish that kind of summary in contrast with the verbatim report that is normally published?

Mr. Rees: My view is that the Committee will publish a verbatim report of all the relevant evidence that is put before it.
I ought perhaps to mention the subject of costs if there are counsel involved. That is a matter for the House. There is no precedent for the House paying costs where a Member has been represented. It is wise, perhaps, not to enter into a commitment. But the Committee itself will be free to make recommendations to the House on the subject of costs at any time.
On occasions, it has seemed apparent that some right hon. and hon. Members have not got quite correctly the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Standards in Public Life. It says:
Membership of Parliament is a great honour and carries with it a special duty to maintain the highest standards of probity, and this duty has almost invariably been strictly observed. Nevertheless in view of our report as a whole, and especially in the light of the points set out in the foregoing paragraph, we recommend that Parliament should consider


bringing corruption, bribery and attempted bribery …".
It does not say that it should. Right hon. and hon. Members who believe that it would be an easy matter to consider this and to have a quick Act of Parliament in all that spare time that we are likely to have in the next Session should think again.
In my view, the House should have confidence in the Committee, the membership of which is a fair mix of the different age groups—the young, the not so young and the old in wisdom in the House. It is right that there should be lawyers on it, because they will be dealing with criminal reports which will come from the DPP. We should have full confidence in the Committee and in the report that it puts to us at the end of the day.
This House will come to its decision when we see the report. The report will not be a cover-up. It will only leave out what is scurrilous and the things that I feel sure right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House would not wish to see published.
I put it to the House that the motion should be passed in the form in which it stands on the Order Paper. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover and to his hon. Friends that the effect of their amendment would be to instruct the Select Committee to conduct its proceedings in public, and "proceedings" would normally be interpreted to mean not only the taking of evidence but all

the deliberations of the Committee. That would be the effect of the amendment, whether my hon. Friend intends it or not.

The fact that there is no precedent for such a course does not matter very much, but my lion. Friend ought to take into account that judges, juries and members of tribunals are allowed to confer in private during the course of their activities. Whatever my hon. Friend is trying to do here, in my view he is not getting it right.

As to the Liberal amendment, we have made our case in the course of the day. Our view is that the Committee should meet in private, that it should publish at the end of the day its report, together with the evidence taken, and that this House should then decide what it wishes to do in a matter which is quite properly, as it has been historically, for this House.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that I said that I would put the Question paragraph by paragraph until we come to the paragraph to which there is an amendment.

Motion made, and Question put,
That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the conduct and activities of Members of this House in connection with the affairs of Mr. J. G. L. Poulson; to consider whether any such conduct or activities amounted to a contempt of the House or was inconsistent with the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its Members; and to report:—

The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 21.

Division No. 356.]
AYES
[9.47 p.m.


Anderson, Donald
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Archer, Peter
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Doig, Peter


Armstrong, Ernest
Campbell, Ian
Dormand, J. D.


Arnold, Tom
Canavan, Dennis
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Ashton, Joe
Carlisle, Mark
Drayson, Burnaby


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Carmichael, Neil
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cartwright, John
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Baker, Kenneth
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Banks, Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Clemitson, Ivor
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cockcroft, John
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Bates, Alf
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Emery, Peter


Beith, A. J.
Cohen, Stanley
English, Michael


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Coleman, Donald
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)


Benyon, W.
Concannon, J. D.
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Conlan, Bernard
Faulds, Andrew


Biffen, John
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Biggs-Davison, John
Cope, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Corbett, Robin
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Corrie, John
Ford, Ben


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Fox, Marcus


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dalyell, Tam
Freud, Clement


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Deakins, Eric
Fry, Peter


Buchan, Norman
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Buck, Antony
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Budgen, Nick
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Ginsburg, David


Bulmer, Esmond
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Golding, John




Goodhew, Victor
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Maclennan, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Silverman, Julius


Gray, Hamish
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Grieve, Percy
Marten, Neil
Small, William


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mather, Carol
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Grist, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Speed, Keith


Grylls, Michael
Mayhew, Patrick
Spence, John


Hall, Sir John
Mikardo, Ian
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Spriggs, Leslie


Hatton, Frank
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Stallard, A. W.


Havers, Sir Michael
Mills, Peter
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hayhoe, Barney
Miscampbell, Norman
Stanley, John


Heffer, Eric S.
Molloy, William
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Heseltine, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Hooley, Frank
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hooson, Emlyn
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Stoddart, David


Horam, John
Morgan, Geraint
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hordern, Peter
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham,Sm H)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Huckfield, Les
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Tebbit, Norman


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Neave, Airey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Nelson, Anthony
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Neubert, Michael
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hunter, Adam
Newton, Tony
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ogden, Eric
Thompson, George


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Onslow, Cranley
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tierney, Sydney


James, David
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Tomlinson, John


Janner, Greville
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Torney, Tom


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Paisley, Rev Ian
Urwin, T. W.


Jessel, Toby
Palmer, Arthur
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


John, Brynmor
Park, George
Viggers, Peter


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Parker, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Parkinson, Cecil
Wakeham, John


Judd, Frank
Pavitt, Laurie
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Kaufman, Gerald
Penhaligon David
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Perry, Ernest
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Knox, David
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Wall, Patrick


Lamont, Norman
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Ward, Michael


Lawrence, Ivan
Reid, George
Watkins, David


Lawson, Nigel
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Watkinson, John


Leadbitter, Ted
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Watt, Hamish


Le Marchant, Spencer
Ridsdale, Julian
Weatherill, Bernard


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Wells, John


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Welsh, Andrew


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roderick, Caerwyn
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Lipton, Marcus
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
White, James (Pollock)


Lloyd, Ian
Roper, John
Whitlock, William


Lomas, Kenneth
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wiggin, Jerry


Loveridge, John
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Wigley, Dafydd


Luard, Evan
Rowlands, Ted
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Ryman, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


McCartney, Hugh
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Woodall, Alec


McElhone, Frank
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)



Macfarlane, Neil
Shelton, William (Streatham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Shersby, Michael
Mr. Joseph Harper and


MacGregor, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. James Hamilton.




NOES


Bean, R. E.
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Bidwell, Sydney
Litterick, Tom
Skinner, Dennis


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Woof, Robert


Evans, John (Newton)
Parry, Robert



Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Mr. J. W. Rooker and


Kerr, Russell
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Mr. John Lee.


Lamond, James

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the conduct and activities of Members of this House in connection with the

affairs of Mr. J. G. L. Poulson; to consider whether any such conduct or activities amounted to a contempt of the House or was inconsistent with the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its Members; and to report:

Ordered,
That the Committee do consist of ten Members:
Committee accordingly nominated of Miss Harvie Anderson, Mr. Peter Blaker, Mr. Leon Brittan, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. William Ross, Mr. Donald Stewart, Mr. Michael Stewart, Mr. Jeffrey Thomas, and Mr. Peter Thomas.

Ordered,
That Five be the Quorum of the Committee:

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; and to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House:

Ordered,
That the Committee shall lay before the House all such oral and documentary evidence as upon consideration by them shall appear to be relevant and such as may fairly be taken into account:

Ordered,
That Mr. Attorney General shall attend the Committee so far as the Committee may require to present evidence relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry; and may give such further assistance to the Committee as may be appropriate:

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint persons to carry out such work relating to the Committee's order of reference as the Committee may determine:

Ordered,
That the Committee have leave to hear Counsel to such extent as they shall see fit:—[The Prime Minister.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Motion relating to Conduct of Members and the Development of Rural Wales Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

CONDUCT OF MEMBERS

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That no person not being a member of the Committee shall be present during any of the proceedings of the Committee unless required by the Committee to be present for the purposes of their inquiry:—[The Prime Minister.]

Amendment proposed, to leave out from 'That' to end of the Question and add instead thereof,
the Committee shall conduct its proceedings in public:".—[Mr. Skinner.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 35, Noes 256.

Division No. 357.]
AYES
[10.01 p.m.


Canavan, Dennis
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sedgemore, Brian


Clemitson, Ivor
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Litterick, Tom
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Evans, John (Newton)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tierney, Sydney


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mikardo, Ian
Welsh, Andrew


Hatton, Frank
Ogden, Eric
Wigley, Dafydd


Heffer, Eric S.
Parry, Robert
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hooley, Frank
Penthailgon, David
Woof, Robert


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)



Kerr, Russell
Reid, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lamond, James
Richardson, Miss Jo
Mr. J. W. Rooker and


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Roberts, Gwllym (Cannock)
Mr. John Lee.




NOES


Anderson, Donald
Buck, Antony
Corrie, John


Archer, Peter
Budgen, Nick
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Armstrong, Ernest
Bulmer, Esmond
Cryer, Bob


Arnold, Tom
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Ashton, Joe
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Dalyell, Tam


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Campbell, Ian
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Baker, Kenneth
Carlisle, Mark
Deakins, Eric


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Carmichael, Neil
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Bates, Alf
Cartwright, John
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)


Beith, A. J.
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund


Benyon, W.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Berry, Hon Anthony
Cockcroft, John
Doig, Peter


Biffen, John
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Dormand, J. D.


Biggs-Davison, John
Cohen, Stanley
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Coleman, Donald
Drayson, Burnaby


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Concannon, J. D.
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Conlan, Bernard
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cope, John
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Corbett, Robin
Emery, Peter




English, Michael
Loveridge, John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Faulds, Andrew
Luard, Evan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McCartney, Hugh
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Ford, Ben
McElhone, Frank
Shersby, Michael


Fox, Marcus
Macfarlane, Nell
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Freud, Clement
MacGregor, John
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Fry, Peter
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stlverman, Julius


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maclennan, Robert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Small, William


Ginsburg, David
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Golding, John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Speed, Keith


Goodhew, Victor
Mather, Carol
Spence, John


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mawby, Ray
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Gray, Hamish
Mayhew, Patrick
Spriggs, Leslie


Grieve, Percy
Mendelson, John
Stallard, A. W.


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Grist, Ian
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Stanley, John


Grylls, Michael
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hall, Sir John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Miscampbell, Norman
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Molyneaux, James
Stoddart, David


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Montgomery, Fergus
Stradling Thomas, J.


Havers, Sir Michael
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hayhoe, Barney
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Tebbit, Norman


Heseltine, Michael
Morgan, Geraint
Temple-Morris, Peter


Holland, Philip
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thatcher Rt Hon Margaret


Hooson Emlyn
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Thompson, George


Horam, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)



Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King



Howell, David (Guildford)
Neave, Airey
Tomlinson, John


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham,Sm H)
Nelson, Anthony
Torney, Tom


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Neubert Michael
Urwin, T. W.


Huckfield, Les
Newton, Tony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hughes, Rt Hon c. (Anglesey)
Oakes Gordon
Viggers, Peter


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Onslow, Cranley
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Hunter, Adam
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wakeham, John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Paisley, Rev Ian
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


James, David
Palmer, Arthur
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Janner, Greville
Park, George
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;Wdf'd)
Parker, John
Wall, Patrick


Jessel, Toby
Parkinson, Cecil
Ward, Michael


John, Brynmor
Pavitt, Laurie
Watkins, David


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Perry, Ernest
Watkinson, John


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Watt, Hamish


Judd, Frank
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Weatherill, Bernard


Kaufman, Gerald
Radice, Giles
Wells, John


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
White, James (Pollock)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Whitlock, William


Knox, David
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Lamborn, Harry
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Lamont, Norman
Roberts, (Michael (Cardiff NW)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Lawrence, Ivan
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Lawson, Nigel
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Roper, John
Woodall, Alec


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)



Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lipton, Marcus
Rowlands, Ted
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Lloyd, Ian
Ryman, John
Mr. Ted Graham.


Lomas, Kenneth

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Speaker: Before I put the next Question, I should like to say to the House that I accepted the last amendment with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) standing in the Aisle. I want the House to know that in future I shall not accept any motions or amendments proposed unless hon. Members are standing in their places.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That no person not being a member of the Committee shall be present during any of the proceedings of the Committee unless required by the Committee to be present for the purposes of their inquiry.

Motion made, and Question put,
'That no witness summoned to appear before the Committee shall claim Crown Privilege as a justification for refusing to answer questions asked by the Committee:'.—[Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop.]

The House divided: Ayes 45. Noes 143.

Division No. 358.]
AYES
10.13 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Lamond, James
Sedgemore, Brian


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Skinner, Dennis


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Lawrence, Ivan
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Canavan, Dennis
Lee, John
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Litterick, Tom
Thompson, George


Clemitson, Ivor
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Tierney, Sydney


Drayson, Burnaby
Maynard, Miss Joan
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Watt, Hamish


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Welsh, Andrew


Evans, John (Newton)
Paisley, Rev Ian
Wigley, Dafydd


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Penhaligon, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hatton, Frank
Reid, George
Woof, Robert


Heffer, Eric S.
Richardson, Miss Jo



Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jessel, Toby
Rooker, J. W.
Mr. Arthur Lewis and


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop


Kerr, Russell






NOES


Anderson, Donald
Hooson, Emlyn
Parker, John


Archer, Peter
Horam, John
Parry, Robert


Armstrong, Ernest
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham,Sm H)
Pavitt, Laurie


Ashton, Joe
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Perry, Ernest


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Huckfield, Les
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Bates, Alf
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Radice, Giles


Beith, A. J.
Hunter, Adam
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Campbell, Ian
James, David
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Carlisle, Mark
Janner, Greville
Roper, John


Cartwright, John
John, Brynmor
Rowlands, Ted


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Ryman, John


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Coleman, Donald
Judd, Frank
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Concannon, J. D.
Kaufman, Gerald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Conlan, Bernard
Lamborn, Harry
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Corbett, Robin
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Silverman, Julius


Cryer, Bob
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lipton, Marcus
Spriggs, Leslie


Dalyell, Tarn
Lomas, Kenneth
Stallard, A. W.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Luard, Evan
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Deakins, Eric
McCartney, Hugh
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McElhone, Frank
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Tomlinson, John


Doig, Peter
Maclennan, Robert
Torney, Tom


Dormand, J. D.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Urwin, T. W.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mawby, Ray
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


English, Michael
Mikardo, Ian
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Ward, Michael


Faulds, Andrew
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Watkins, David


Ford, Ben
Miscampbell, Norman
Watkinson, John


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Molloy, William
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Freud, Clement
Morgan, Geraint
White, James (Pollock)


Ginsburg, David
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Whitlock, William


Golding, John
Morris, Charles R, (Openshaw)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Graham, Ted
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Gray, Hamish
Neubert, Michael
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Oakes, Gordon
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Hamilton, James (Sothwell)
Ogden, Eric
Woodall, Alec


Harper, Joseph
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley



Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. John Ellis and


Hooley, Frank
Park, George
Mr. David Stoddart.

Question accordingly negatived.

Motion made, and Question put,
'That the Committee shall at their discretion sit in public if they consider that at any stage of the inquiry the requirements of justice

or of the public interest requires them to do so notwithstanding any of the foregoing:'.— [Mr. David Steel.]

The House divided: Ayes 63. Noes 219.

Division No. 359.]
AYES
[10.23 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bean, R. E.
Canavan, Dennis


Allaun, Frank
Bidwell, Sydney
Clemitson, Ivor


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Corbett, Robin




Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Litterick, Tom
Spearing, Nigel


English, Michael
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Evans, John (Newton)
Mikardo, Ian
Thompson, George


Garrell, W. E. (Wallsend)
Ogden, Eric
Tierney, Sydney


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Paisley, Rev Ian
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Hatton, Frank
Parry, Robert
Watt, Hamish


Heffer, Eric S.
Pavitt, Laurie
Welsh, Andrew


Hooley, Frank
Penhaligon, David
Whitlock, William


Hooson, Emlyn
Reid, George
Wigley, Dafydd


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Woof, Robert


Kerr, Russell
Rooker, J. W.



Lamond, James
Sedgemore, Brian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Lee, John
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Stephen Ross.


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)






NOES


Anderson, Donald
Fry, Peter
Mayhew, Patrick


Archer, Peter
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mendelson, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Ginsburg, David
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Arnold, Tom
Golding, John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Ashton, Joe
Goodhew, Victor
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Miscampbell, Norman


Baker, Kenneth
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Molyneaux, James


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Gray, Hamish
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Bates, Alf
Grieve, Percy
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bennell, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Grist, Ian
Morgan, Geraint


Benyon, W.
Grylls, Michael
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hall, Sir John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bitten, John
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Biggs-Davison, John
Harper, Joseph
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Neave, Airey


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Nelson, Anthony


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Havers, Sir Michael
Neubert, Michael


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hayhoe, Barney
Oakes, Gordon


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Holland, Philip
Onslow, Cranley


Buck, Antony
Horam, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Budgen, Nick
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham,Sm H)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Bulmer, Esmond
Huckfield, Les
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Palmer, Arthur


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Hunter, Adam
Park, George


Campbell, Ian
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Parker, John


Carlisle, Mark
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Perry, Ernest


Cartwright, John
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
James, David
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Janner, Greville
Radice, Giles


Cockcrott, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Jessel, Toby
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cohen, Stanley
John, Brynmor
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Conlan, Bernard
Judd, Frank
Roberta, Wyn (Conway)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cope, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Corrie, John
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Roper, John


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Knox, David
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Cryer, Bob
Lamborn, Harry
Rowlands, Ted


Dalyell, Tarn
Lamont, Norman
Ryman, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lawrence, Ivan
Scott-Hopkins, James


Deakins, Eric
Lawson, Nigel
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shersby, Michael


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Doig, Peter
Lloyd, Ian
Silverman, Julius


Dormand, J. D.
Lomas, Kenneth
Skeet, T. H. H.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Loveridge, John
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Drayson, Burnaby
Luard, Evan
Speed, Keith


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Spence, John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McCartney, Hugh
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McElhone, Frank
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Emery, Peter
Macfarlane, Nell
Spriggs, Leslie


Faulds, Andrew
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stallard, A. W.


Fisher, Sir Nigel
MacGregor, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stanley, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maclennan, Robert
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stoddart, David


Ford, Ben
Mather, Carol
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mawby, Ray
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Freud, Clement
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tebbit, Norman







Temple-Morris, Peter
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Tomlinson, John
Wall, Patrick
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Torney, Tom
Ward, Michael
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Urwin, T. W.
Watkins, David
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Watkinson, John
Woodall, Alec


Viggers, Peter
Weatherill, Bernard



Wakeham, John
Wells, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Walder, David (Clitheroe)
White, Frank R. (Bury)
Mr. John Ellis and


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
White, James (Pollok)
Mr. Ted Graham.


Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Question accordingly negatived.


Ordered,


That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House until the end of this Parliament.—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL WALES BILL [LORDS]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

RELATIONS BETWEEN THE BOARD AND THE AGENCY

'In all cases within the area in Wales for which the Board is responsible, when there is a dispute or conflict of interest between the Board and the Welsh Development Agency, such dispute or conflict of interest shall be subject to adjudication and decision by the Secretary of State'.—[Sir R. Gower.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.34 p.m.

Sir Raymond Gower: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not fair to the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the House if hon. Members leaving the Chamber do not do so quietly.

Sir R. Gower: In view of the lateness of the hour I shall abbreviate what I intended to say in support of the new clause. The general objective and function of the Board set up for rural Wales as prescribed in the early part of the Bill is:
For the purpose of promoting the economic and social well-being of the people in the area of Wales for which it is responsible under this Act.
In subsection (5) there is a more detailed explanation of the Board's powers and functions.
In Section 1(2) of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 a similar array of functions is set out. It says:

"(a) to further the economic development of Wales or any part of Wales;
(b) to promote industrial efficiency and international competitiveness in Wales;
(c) to provide, maintain or safeguard employment in any part of Wales; and
(d) to further the improvement of the environment in Wales (having regard to existing amenity.)"

It can be seen that there is a similarity between the powers given to the new

Board and those given to the Agency. But the remit for rural Wales is much narrower. The powers are restricted to the three counties mentioned at the beginning of the Bill, which form a small part of the Principality. For the time being the area covered by the Board will remain a small part, although I recognise that the Secretary of State may later approve its extension.
The Board is obviously intended to do in this smaller area things not dissimilar to those that may be done in industrial parts of Wales by the Agency. The Minister told us during the passage of these two measures that the Agency would probably have most of its resources and energies employed not in the whole of Wales, and certainly not in rural Wales, but primarily in the industrial parts. Therefore, I surmise that the main activity in the rural area of Mid-Wales will be by the new Board.
In these circumstances there could be a difference of opinion between the Board and the Agency on how to ensure the future prosperity of the area. The Agency will be acting more freely, without the direct supervision of the Secretary of State. The Minister may tell me that this will be balanced by the fact that in most cases the Board will be referring its proposals to the Secretary of State, as explained in the detailed functions set out in Clause 3(1)(b):
from time to time to prepare and submit to the Secretary of State for his approval proposals (whether of a general or specific character) for the economic and social development of the area or any part of it".
Nevertheless, I can see possibilities of a difference of opinion between the Agency, with its wider responsibilities, and the new Board, with its remit concerning the comparatively localised area of the three counties specified in the Bill.
The new clause is partly substantive and partly probing. If there is a conflict between the two authorities I should like the Secretary of State to act more as a referee, judge or arbiter to balance the different views and make a judicial decision.
Although the wording of the clause may not be perfect, I hope that the Minister will not rely on that fact alone in seeking to defeat the provision on technical grounds. I believe that the clause will be a valuable addition to the Bill


because the decision will have to be made by the Secretary of State, who is accountable to the House. In cases of conflict, the Secretary of State should be able to consider the different views put forward by the Agency and, in some circumstances, by the Board, and should be able to adjudge the matter or to refer it to an adjudicator. I hope the Minister will feel that some provision of this nature should be added to the Bill.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: We now come to an important objection to the fundamental nature of the Bill. I wish to make one or two general observations about the course adopted by the Government in putting forward this measure and to give our reasons for thinking that it may not work satisfactorily.
I am not sure that the clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) will remove our fundamental objections or ease the uncertainties created in people's minds by these provisions, although the clause seeks to ameliorate some of the consequences. I wish to emphasise that we believe that the structure of the Bill is fundamentally unsound, but I shall put my points more fully in the brief Third Reading debate.
Let me merely say at this point that we believe that there is plenty of room in the Bill as drafted for uncertainty about geographical boundaries and responsibilities accorded to the Agency and the Board. We believe that this will cause considerable difficulties in future, but I shall not be urging my hon. Friends to press the matter to a vote, unless my hon. Friend the Member for Barry wishes to do so.

10.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Barry Jones): The hon. Members for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) and Barry (Sir R. Gower) might be at odds over the new clause. There is no reason to expect conflict here. The Development Board for Rural Wales will have its own specific functions, like those relating to new towns—advance factories, housing and COSIRA functions for small industries—while the Agency will get on with the main business of giving direct assistance to industry, and, in the second

arm of its activity, the environmental functions.
To try to reassure the hon. Member for Barry, I would remind him that the Chairman of the DBRW will join the WDA Board. I hope that this will persuade the hon. Member that harmony will be promoted and the conflict he fears avoided.
As the Bill is drafted, the Secretary of State can direct the Agency under Clause 1 and the Board under Clause 2. Those powers can be used to avoid any conflict which arises. I would advise the House to reject the new clause, but I hope that the hon. Member will consider withdrawing it.

Sir Raymond Gower: Although I am not entirely satisfied, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS TO THE BOARD

'Functions exercised by the Welsh Development Agency within the area in Wales for which the Board is responsible shall whenever possible and appropriate be delegated to the Board'.—[Sir R. Gower.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Raymond Gower: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Wherever possible, the functions of the Welsh Development Agency should be delegated to the new authority for rural Wales. The two bodies are rather different. I apprehend that the anxieties, concerns and hopes of the Board will he by their nature more concentrated. Its remit is limited to the rural counties of Mid-Wales. It will not be diverted by consideration of the important matters which must occupy the WDA in all parts of the Principality. It will consider the problems of the industrial South, of North-East Wales and of the extreme North-West.
On the other hand, the DBRW will be concerned solely with the problems of the rural counties. It will probably, therefore, be more sensitive to local opinion and anxieties, and as time goes on it will be a more responsive instrument to deal with those problems.
The Minister may tell me that, under Clause 4 (1)(e) and (f), the Board has the function of providing finance and services other than finance as agent for the Agency, but there is nothing to suggest that in most cases the Agency should seek to have its functions carried through by the new Board, especially in Mid-Wales.
I should like to see something more definite in this respect. The new clause would ensure that, wherever possible and appropriate, these powers should be delegated by the Agency to the Board in the comparatively narrow areas for which the Board will be responsible. I commend the new clause as a definite improvement.

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: As the hon. Member of Parliament for an area which the Board will serve, I want to dissociate myself entirely from the clause, because people in the area do not want to be deprived of the work of the WDA. They do not want delegated powers from the Agency to go to the rural development Board. We feel that the work of the WDA in building advance factories, and so on, should continue. The Board is a special one to deal primarily with rural functions. It is not to deal with the overall economic development of Wales. We want to continue our association with that overall economic development by having the WDA operating in our area. One of the fears expressed in the area is that we shall suffer in having a rural development Board——

Sir Raymond Gower: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that the Minister has said on a number of occasions that the work of the Agency will be largely concentrated outside Mid-Wales and be in other parts, predominantly in the industrial areas? If there is some work which it is doing in rural Wales, is it not reasonable to suggest that the comparatively small amount of time that it will be able to devote to it should be done through the agency of the rural Board?

Mr. Roderick: The hon. Gentleman has not listened to my remarks in the past. This was one of the reasons why I was anxious to see the setting up of the Board. We felt that, naturally, the WDA would have to concentrate in the more urban areas most of its time. That

is why we want to complement its work in the rural areas. We want the WDA in our areas. We know that it must look after the more serious problems of the urban areas and, therefore, we want this board to complement that work.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: One remark of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) brought out the confusion which has arisen in this matter. He said that the Welsh Development Agency was the body that he would like to see dealing with advance factory building in his constituency. As I understand the Bill and the remarks of the Under-Secretary in Committee, it is the Board which will be dealing with advance factories. This is one of the powers reserved to the Board. If at this stage the hon. Gentleman is still confused about this matter—and justifiably, in my view—it is very likely that industrialists and others outside the House are equally confused. This is one of our fundamental complaints about the structure of the Bill.

Mr. Roderick: It may be that the Board will deal with advance factories. But the WDA has functions which the Board will not have. It will not have the opportunity to make grants for certain developments, and we do not want to lose out on that kind of development. I do not know of anyone in my area who wants these powers transferred. That is why I felt compelled to speak against the clause.

Mr. Barry Jones: My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) is right. His constituency and others will not lose out in the area of the Board.
I advise the House to resist the clause. In the first place, it lacks precision. Who is to decide when it shall be appropriate for the WDA to delegate? Then again, other changes might have to be made to the Bill now before Parliament to secure that the Agency could delegate all its functions to the Board; for example, the clearance of derelict land function of the Agency. So, to that extent, the clause is not effective.
We believe in horses for courses. We believe that the Welsh Development Agency throughout Wales should have responsibility for derelict land clearance and should have investment in industry


powers. It has its experts and professional people. We do not believe that we should stretch this expertise around and give the Board too many powers.
Basically, therefore, for these three reasons I advise the House to reject the clause.

Question put and negatived

Clause 2

DIRECTIONS OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO THE BOARD AND CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 31, leave out subsection (1).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we may take the following amendments:

Government Amendment No. 4.

Amendment No. 19, in Clause 21, page 15, line 41, leave out
'Without prejudice to section 1() of this Act,'.

Government Amendments Nos. 20 and 21.

Amendment No. 22, in Schedule 1. page 25, line 3, leave out
under section 1() of this Act'.

Government Amendment No. 23.

Amendment No. 24, page 25, line 11, leave out from beginning to first 'the' in line 12.

Government Amendment No. 25.

Mr. Edwards: When in Committee we carried our amendment about the establishment of Consultative Council we at the same time replaced the original subsection (7) of Clause 1, which gave the Board power to give directions, with the present subsection (1) of Clause 2, which gives the Secretary of State power only to give general directions.
The Secretary of State, by a later amendment, now seeks to remove the Consultative Council and, in this group of amendments, to revert to his tighter control of the Board, under which he can give specific directions on a wide range of matters.
Incidentally, I think it wholly deplorable that the Government should seek by Amendment No. 21 to delete the moderate provision that before giving any

direction to the Board the Secretary of State should consult the Board.
It is this power of the Secretary of State to direct, and our anxieties about it, that led us to table Amendment No. 3 really as a basis for debate and as a probing amendment, and not as one that we wish to press at this stage. But subsequently we shall certainly seek to retain the Consultative Council that we brought into the Bill at the Committee stage.
I have considerable reservations about the powers of direction given to the Secretary of State by the Bill, and there are a number of specific points which I should like to raise and elaborate upon. But, for the convenience of the House, I propose to do so during our Third Reading debate, because I think it will be just as possible there for me to make those points and for the Under-Secretary to reply to them without losing the essence of the argument at this time.
The point we seek to make at this stage is that we think the Board, if it is to function successfully, should be a freestanding independent organisation, able to use its judgment with the minimum of Government interference, so that it can decide on the particular needs of its locality. Frankly, we are suspicious of the wide powers given to the Secretary of State to dictate its activities. The Government's economic record does not encourage us to the view that they will be taking the right decisions. As I shall say later to the House, some things which have occurred make us suspect that these powers could be misused.
We are also concerned about questions of parliamentary administration, in the sense that throughout our debates, on both the Welsh Development Agency and the Board, we have been told that one of the reasons why the Secretary of State should have these wide powers is that, after all, he is responsible, and responsible to Parliament. We anticipated, therefore, that we should be able to press the Secretary of State for information at Question Time.
We have, I regret to say, when dealing with the matters under the responsibility of the Welsh Development Agency, found very often that our straightforward Questions on such matters as advance factory building and derelict land clearance have been answered with the reply that this is now a matter which is the


responsibility of the WDA. The Department and the Secretary of State are not wholly consistent in that, because on Friday they answered a series of Questions which I had put on this point, when previously they had refused to answer them.
I hope that when we are dealing with matters central to the economic management of Wales, the fact that we have a Development Agency and a rural Board will not prevent the Government from giving the facts to the House in the most convenient way—where possible by parliamentary reply to Questions. There are one or two other general matters which I wish to raise, but I will postpone these until a later occasion.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Barry Jones: I advise the House to resist the Opposition amendment. Our own amendments, particularly Amendment No. 4, will delete the limitation confining the power of the Secretary of State to give directions to the Board to directions of a general character only. Amendments Nos. 20, 23 and 25 are consequential.
Amendment No. 21 stands apart. Its effect is to remove an unnecessary provision in Schedule 1 relating to a provision in Clause 1 that was removed at Committee stage. This is not a deplorable amendment, as the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) claimed, and the economic record of the Government is good.
These are crucial requirements. The Secretary of State has a responsibility to Parliament, and to meet that responsibility he needs the powers of direction. With responsibility goes authority, and the Secretary of State would need his powers of specific as well as general direction. There are many precedents for powers of direction over other bodies, as in the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975, the Highlands and Islands Development Act (Scotland) 1965, and New Towns Act 1965 with regard to development corporations, and the Industry Act 1975 with regard to the National Enterprise Board.
In particular, we need the powers of specific direction. The Secretary' of State may require the Board to sell land to a local authority as he may wish to indicate that an advance factory will go to a

certain town in the Principality. There is a difficulty in defining the dividing line between specific and general directions. General directions have been found to be specific in nature, and, therefore, ultra vires in the absence of provision for specific direction. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the Opposition will withdrawn their amendment.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: As I indicated earlier. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is my intention. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 2, line 32, leave out "of a general character".

Mr. Barry Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 2, leave out lines 35 to 40.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendments Nos. 27 and 28.

Mr. Jones: In urging the House to support these amendments, obviously my memory goes back to the Committee stage. I remind right hon. and hon. Members opposite that if there were to be a Consultative Council we would have in the Principality yet another nominated body. It is very clear that public opinion in Wales does not wish to have another nominated body, and the Government's objective would be to reduce the number of bodies with interests in this area of rural Wales. For too long there have been too many bodies. The idea is to have fewer in order to make action more effective.
I urge the House to recollect that local interests are to be represented on the Board. Local authorities, we think, would want direct representation on the Board. Five members of the Board will represent local authorities and local authority associations.
The Board is large. It has 11 to 13 members, and we think that this will adequately represent the interests of the area.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Is the Minister suggesting that the members of the Board will not consult other organisations in Wales that are not represented on the Board?

Mr. Jones: Certainly the Board will consult widely at all times. It intends to be responsive and sensitive to the needs of rural Wales. I hope that I can dispel any doubts the hon. Member has on that score. The Board will be required to consult very widely. In another place, proposals for the Consultative Council were, in the end, withdrawn.
It is expected that when the Welsh Assembly is operative the Board will be responsible to the Assembly. We say that this is yet another very strong reason why the Consultative Council should not come into being.

Sir Raymond Gower: The hon. Gentleman said that the proposals were withdrawn in another place, but does he not recall that when this was mooted in Committee the Government did not argue strongly against it and they let it go through. They certainly did not make any strong case against it.

Mr. Jones: I totally reject the recollections of the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) of that debate. He might cast his mind back to the response of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman), and his very strong reaction when the Consultative Council was included.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Government Amendments Nos. 5 and 27 are major amendments because they eliminate the proposal that there should be a Consultative Council to the Board including representatives of local authorities, agriculture, forestry and such other interests as the Secretary of State sees fit.
The local authority representatives were to have been selected after consultation with the county councils and district councils in the Board's area and with local authority organisations in Wales. Other representatives of particular interests were also to have been appointed after consultation with the appropriate bodies. So I contest the Minister's view that the council would simply be yet another nominated body in Wales. The purpose of the council is to extend the representation of the interests concerned with the Board. The elimination of the Consultative Council will be very much regretted by those interests which had a reasonable expectation of being represented on it.

Mr. Barry Jones: Is the hon. Member not overlooking the fact that local authorities would be represented rather absurdly both on the Board and on the Consultative Council?

Mr. Roberts: I am coming to that point. Of course, the local authorities will have five members on the Development Board, and the Government have argued that this is sufficient. But the Government will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) argued in Committee in favour of a smaller board, similar to the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which also has a consultative council, and which we understand works very well.
Our amendment having been carried in Committee, and the council having been included in the Bill, we thought that the Government would have accepted it with good grace and possibly would have proposed consequential amendments at this stage to reduce the size of the Board. But they have done nothing of the kind. They have sought to abolish the council and to stick to their large Board of part-timers. But that Board might be dominated by its executive and may prove to be an unwieldy body. Even in those circumstances we still feel that we must defend the Consultative Council, because we are still concerned about the agricultural, forestry and other interests which are specifically mentioned as meriting inclusion in the Consultative Council.
If the council is removed from the Bill these interests will have no statutory voice since there will be no statutory requirement for them to be represented on the Board. The agricultural interests have very little protection in the Bill. We are deeply concerned about that. The same can be said of tourism. The Government may say that these interests will in all probability be represented on the Board. But we would like their representation to be written into the Bill and not left to the discretion of the Secretary of State and his successors.
The main arguments against the Consultative Council are that the Board itself has almost double the membership of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, that it is already obliged to consult widely, and, finally, that it is to be responsible to the Welsh Assembly if and when that body comes into being. That


last argument is unsound. The Assembly is not yet in being and should not, therefore, be taken into account. The Board is obliged to consult before submitting proposals to the Secretary of State, but those consultations to be held under Clause 3(6), will be primarily with planning authorities and local authorities and other bodies as appear to the Board to have an interest in the proposals. In other words, the initiative lies with the Board, and its consultations can be limited by the very nature of the proposals it hopes to submit to the Secretary of State. I would have thought that such consultations would preclude consultations on other specific matters as well as on more general matters.
We are concerned that there should be a watchdog body representative of the major interests in Mid-Wales to advise the Board at what is bound to be a difficult time when rural development policies are in the melting-pot and when new town development policies are changing. Without the council we shall have a large and unwieldy Board of part-time members dominated by their executive.
Our ideal recipe would be a smaller, more compact, efficient and effective Board capable of decisive action after consultation with a larger broadly-based and representative body with its ear close to the ground in Mid-Wales. But if the ideal is to be denied us we still believe that the consultative council is valuable and should be retained. I shall, therefore, ask my hon. Friends to vote against the amendment.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts). On this issue in Committee, the Opposition parties were united for once because we believe that the Board should be concerned with community development in

Mid-Wales and community participation in development.

In order to do this effectively, we need full-time expertise to be active in the day-to-day administration of the Board's work and, at the same time, wide consultative machinery to enable the whole community to participate in development.

The ideal structure would have been a small professional full-time Board, with a nucleus of three or four, and possibly one or two part-time members—comprising a board of, say, half a dozen—and, in addition, a Consultative Council with representatives not only of local authorities, trade unions and trades councils but of forestry, land use and recreational interests.

Instead, we have an ineffective, unwieldy compromise. We shall have a large, nominated Board of part-timers which will no doubt meet irregularly and, therefore, leave the day-to-day management in the hands of officers. We ought to have effective day-to-day management of the problems of Mid-Wales by a full-time Board backed up by a Consultative Council engaged in the whole area of the development process. We shall support the official Opposition in trying to restrain the Government from going back on the wishes of the Committee.

Sir Raymond Gower: We regard the Government's attempt to negate the Board as a most objectionable and reactionary move. They are removing one of the most valuable features of the Bill. It would have made the Bill much better. I deeply regret that the Government have felt it proper to withdraw this valuable addition.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 86, Noes 80.

Division No. 360.]
AYES
[11.18 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Coleman, Donald
Evans, John (Newton)


Anderson, Donald
Conlan, Bernard
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Archer, Peter
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Golding, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Cryer, Bob
Graham, Ted


Ashton, Joe
Dalyell, Tam
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Deakins, Eric
Hooley, Frank


Bates, Alf
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Huckfield, Les


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dormand, J. D.
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Hunter, Adam


Campbell, Ian
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Canavan, Dennis
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
John, Brynmor


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)




Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Ogden, Eric
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Judd, Frank
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Urwin, T. W.


Kerr, Russell
Palmer, Arthur
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Lamond, James
Parry, Robert
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Richardson, Miss Jo
White, James (Pollock)


Lomas, Kenneth
Roderick, Caerwyn
Whitlock, William


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Rooker, J. W.
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


McCartney, Hugh
Roper, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


McDonald, Or Oonagh
Rowlands, Ted
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


McElhone, Frank
Ryman, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Madden, Max
Skinner, Dennis
Woodall, Alec


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Small, William
Woof, Robert


Mendelson, John
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)



Mikardo, Ian
Spearing, Nigel
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Stoddart, David
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Mr. A. W. Stallard




NOES


Arnold, Tom
Hayhoe, Barney
Penhaligon, David


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Holland, Philip
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Beith, A. J.
Hooson, Emlyn
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Benyon, W.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
James, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Brittan, Leon
Jessel, Toby
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Budgen, Nick
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Skeet, T. H. H.


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Speed, Keith


Carlisle, Mark
Knight, Mrs Jill
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Macfarlane, Neil
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Cockcroft, John
MacGregor, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Tebbit, Norman


Cope, John
Mather, Carol
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Mawby, Ray
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Drayson, Burnaby
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Mayhew, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Weatherill, Bernard


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wells, John


Fry, Peter
Morgan, Geraint
Welsh, Andrew


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Neave, Airey
Wigley, Dafydd


Grist, Ian
Nelson, Anthony



Grylls, Michael
Neubert, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hall, Sir John
Newton, Tony
Mr. John Come and


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 3

DUTIES OF THE BOARD

Mr. Barry Jones: I beg to move Amendment No, 7, in page 4, line 17, at beginning insert 'Copies of'.
This is a drafting amendment which makes it clear that it is only copies of the Board's annual report that are to be laid before each House of Parliament by the Secretary of State, not the actual report made to him.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

GENERAL POWERS OF THE BOARD

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 4, line 44, at end insert:
'which is essential for the economic and social development of the area and which the Board

is satisfied after consultation with the Council cannot be provided in any other way'.
Perhaps the House is in less of a hurry to get on with the Bill and we can elaborate our arguments in view of the vote on the previous amendment. I am sure the Minister will not feel that he has to hurry to reply to the important arguments we shall put forward.
We seek to return to the scene of old battles. On numerous occasions during proceedings on the Bill and other Bills we have voiced anxieties about the powers taken by the Government to acquire and carry on businesses. Government bodies that do not have to commit their own money are not usually good judges of what constitutes a viable business. The recent report of a Select Committee dealing with the activities of the former Secretary of State for Industry in certain organisations bears out that judgment. About £10 million was spent on organisations that promptly went bankrupt.
We are particularly concerned about the possible danger to other business in rural Wales if the Board or the Development Agency—we have to speak of the two organisations jointly because their functions and boundaries frequently averlap—seeks to establish businesses in competition with other organisations or to establish businesses that could threaten the existence of the small businesses that are the foundation of the economic life of rural Wales.
It has become clear from our discussions that the health of rural Wales depends essentially on the health of small businesses. Because small businesses have been crushed by the burden of taxation and administration placed on them by the Government, high interest rates and inflation, we have record unemployment levels throughout much of rural Wales. Unemployment levels are frequently 14 per cent., 15 per cent. or more. In my constituency they are even higher.
We believe that potentially successful enterprises can usually raise finance. I do not share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) in Committee that there are many small businesses that can do well only if they are given a temporary helping hand. I fear that the temporary helping hand would turn into a permanent helping hand and too many businesses would become permanent loss-makers.
We are told that it may be necessary for the Board to operate certain essential services. Specific reference was made in Committee and in another place to the new town powers. It was argued, not unreasonably, that it would not be sensible in this measure to take away powers that already existed in the new town in Mid-Wales. In Committee we tried to qualify the power to manage businesses and take part in business enterprises by reference to a clause that specified that these pursuits should be carried on in new towns. I recognise that that might have been unduly restrictive and that, within the framework of the Board's activities, to draw the boundaries so tightly might have been difficult in practice.
We were also strongly critical in Committee of the extension imposed by the Government of the Board's powers which enabled it to acquire businesses. At the end of the proceedings our anxieties

remained, and those anxieties are shared by others. The Welsh office of the CBI wrote that its committee was
still extremely concerned that the present wording of the clause gives open-ended powers to the Board and it believes that they should be closely and clearly defined. The CBI does not wish to prevent the Board from carrying out essential services but firmly believes that the Board should not be given general powers which might enable it to establish businesses which could compete unfairly with the existing private sector thus affecting employment prospects of employees of established companies.
This evening we are having another go at the same exercise. The Under-Secretary will concede that the amendment is moderate in tone. It is permissive. It will not place restrictions on necessary activities, but it clearly places the onus on the Board to establish that those activities are necessary and cannot be provided by other means. That is reasonable.
I have in mind particularly that the Board should consider the situation of other private businesses in the area which might be able to provide the services and the effect of its decisions on businesses within the area for which it is responsible. The amendment that we tabled envisaged consultation with the Council, but the Council has, sadly, just been swept away by a vote of the House, against the combined representations of the Opposition parties. For that reason, clearly I cannot now press this amendment to a vote as I otherwise would have done. All I can hope is that, if it is felt to be reasonable, in another place the Government will have a further look at this proposal, because I genuinely believe that it has merit.
I urge the Government, when they are considering proposals to establish a development agency or a rural board or any other organisation, not just to be concerned with the actual impact that they believe their proposals will have on business and other activity in an area, but also to take full account of the psychology involved. At present industry is operating under great strains. The small business sector is faced with desperate conditions. Many small businesses find it difficult to survive. Many have had to go under. Many more have laid off one, two or three employees.
It is important that the Government accept or introduce wordings that at least


instil confidence that it is not their intention to weaken small businesses. There is a real fear—it was expressed in the CBI letter—that, whatever the Government's intentions, this will be the effect.
In considering amendments of this nature and in drafting Bills, if they do not intend to use powers in a dangerous or harmful way the Government should make it clear in the legislation. It is no good giving undertakings in Committee. Most business men do not—perhaps mercifully—read our proceedings in Committee. Indeed, it would be a harsh penalty to ask them to do so. Many of them have to read Bills, however, and they see powers being given that cause them alarm. There is an obligation on the Government to write their Bills in such a way that proper safeguards are introduced and alarm is reduced to the minimum.

Sir Raymond Gower: I hope that the Government will look at this carefully. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) has explained why we are opposed to the wording of the Bill. It is too wide and will allow any undertaking or business to be carried on. That power would be great in any part of the country but it is particularly extreme and excessive in the context of the rural area of Mid-Wales.
For various reasons many businesses and industries in rural Wales are experiencing a difficult time. I apportion no blame, but some are finding it difficult to remain solvent. Businesses in rural Wales have several disadvantages, one of which is the population, which is small and scattered. These are scattered catchment areas which are particularly difficult for distribution. Communications are poor, and excessive transport costs cause grave difficulties. Existing businesses, industries and trades in the rural counties of Mid-Wales have long lines of communication for the acquisition of stocks and should they seek to sell outside their immediate neighbourhood.
In addition to the general disadvantages under which industry in the whole of the United Kingdom is at present operating, those in rural counties have extra disadvantages. Probably some of the businesses will go into liquidation in the months ahead. Let us hope they will

be few. Whatever their performance in the past, such firms have every right to be anxious about the future. They face difficult conditions and would be gravely affected if the Agency were allowed to carry on any undertaking or business under the Bill. That is too wide a power to confer on any body in this context.
I hope that the Government will accept our proposal as reasonable. We recognise the need for emergency action in some circumstances, and that would not be removed by our suggested amendment. But we find it objectionable to give the Agency a totally unfettered power. It could be injurious to those who have to work under the present difficulties in rural Wales. People working in rural Wales are apprehensive about this part of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will say something to lessen their fears.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Ian Grist: The clause is objectionable primarily because subsection (1)(g) is a catch-all phrase:
to carry on or acquire and carry on any undertaking or business".
That is a lazy piece of drafting. The draftsmen are saying We couldn't think of anything more to put in the subsection. We threw this in at the end so that the Board can do anything it wants." It has been done before. It is something that Governments and draftsmen go in for, but I see no reason why Parliament should continue to tolerate it. Ministers will be able to produce a number of precedents from previous Bills, but I take no responsibility for those Bills, and, therefore, feel no shame about those precedents.
The Board's functions are restricted to a certain geographical area, and we have been told several times by Ministers that it is restrained in its intent and approach. It is non-party-political and non-doctrinaire. Therefore, there should be no need for this catch-all wording.
The wording is particularly objectionable in the hands of a Socialist Government. We on the Conservative Benches cannot avoid being suspicious about a party which believes in State bodies carrying on, acquiring or starting any business, through the Development Agency, the NEB or whatever it may be. The Government are creating a growing host of bodies. If only they could manage the


economy that little bit better they would have the money, and through this legislation the means to carry on a real Socialist State. The one thing which saves us all at present is that they cannot provide the finance to operate these clauses.
I can see no reason why we should accept this shoddy draftsmanship, especially when we think of the present Government and those who wish to make a reality of the wording.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I support the amendment, which would tighten the definition of the role to be played by the Board. This is perhaps the last amendment on which it is practicable to consider the Board's role, the philosophy behind it and what it is likely to achieve.
I have made it clear in previous debates on the Bill and on the Welsh Development Agency that I am not by temperament opposed to the idea of Government intervention. It is ludicrous to claim in modern society that the State can opt out of economic development. Like it or not, the mixed economy is here to stay, and the State will have a large role to play in the direction of the economy.
The problem then becomes one of balance. Associated with it there is a psychological problem, one of expectations—what people can reasonably expect the State to do. The accumulating evidence. which is now overwhelming, is that the balance has now tilted too far. It is now horribly clear that, for reasons which have nothing to do with political doctrine, the limitations on the effectiveness of Government intervention in the economy are far stricter than any of us had ever imagined.
It is, alas, now clear that unemployment is going out of control in the sense that it no longer responds to stimuli which a decade or so ago would infallibly have influenced its direction one way or the other. This is the justification for the expenditure cuts which have been so strongly urged on the Opposition Benches, because it is now clear—and I am as sorry to say this as anybody else —that it is Government expenditure that is now causing unemployment.
As for the reality of unemployment, there is, I fear, no possibility of disguising it. My own county of Clwyd hither-

to has been one of the stablest in terms of unemployment. I know that the Rhyl area, as most seaside resorts, has a highly fluctuating unemployment rate, but in the area represented by the Under-Secretary of State for Wales on the littoral of Deeside unemployment remained steady and low for a long period. We are now witnessing for the first time a high level of unemployment in that area also. This must give great cause for anxiety to those such as the Under-Secretary of State who believed that there was scope for effective Government intervention to create employment.
The Bill comes at the wrong time. The quarrel with the clause as drafted is that it gives the impression that the Board, by a wave of its wand, can create jobs in that part of Mid-Wales to which the Bill applies. I am sorry to say that it will not be able to create these jobs. For any job that the Board creates by this operation the risk is that one-and-a-half jobs will be lost in areas outside the operation of the Board.
Many people outside the House see these matters more clearly than we do in this House. I refer to the self-employed and the small business men, who are only too aware of the weight of bureaucracy and taxation—a situation brought into being by the existence and activities of well-meaning bodies, such as those that we are discussing tonight. Once expectations are aroused, as they are by the provisions which we are now considering, they are hard to damp down. People who have lost their jobs because of the burdens imposed by the Government on firms, causing those concerns to contract, understandably demand that the Government should take further action to save their jobs and bring in new ones.
It is our responsibility by adopting some such amendment as that which is now before the House to bring home to people the tight limits on the ability of the Government to do anything to save jobs. The best thing the Government can do, if they wish to create more jobs, is not to create more bodies such as in the Bill, but to pack up and go home

Mr. Barry Jones: I reject the alarmist employment theories advanced by the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer). The problem in North-East


Wales, put bluntly, is that for too long the area has relied on too few basic industries that are now vulnerable to technological change.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) placed strictures on our wording, which he said was lazy. I would say that the wording in the amendment is slap-happy. The aim of the Bill is to stop the depopulation of rural Wales, to generate employment, and to make a better life possible for the people of that part of Wales.
I also want to nail the misapprehension under which some hon. Members labour, that this Government might be against small businesses. That is not so. The Department of Industry has its small businesses section, and the Welsh Office is as friendly towards small businesses as any other political philosophers.

Mr. Grist: Since the Minister mentioned the position in North-East Wales, would he not agree that the problem there really lies with the lack of profitability in firms, and that if he wants to bring employment to his part of the world and the rest of Wales, his Government should bring about conditions in which firms can operate profitably?

Mr. Jones: That has nothing to do with the Bill or with Cardiff.

Mr. Geraint Howells: The Minister said that the Government were looking after the interests of small businesses. is he aware that the Government promised an interim report five years after the Bolton Report was published in 1971 on the problems of small businesses and that the present Government have refused such an interim report?

Mr. Jones: Five years ago we did not hold office.
The amendment is incompatible with the Bill as amended. Who will specify the person or the body to decide what is an "essential" business or undertaking? To develop the point that I made to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North, the language of the amendment is unsatisfactory. For instance, one does not "provide" a business. One carries it on or undertakes it in terms of drafting legislation. But I do not say that that is our major objection to the amendment.
The word "essential" is too stringent. Something may be beneficial or desirable without being essential. During the Bill's passage, repeated assurances have been given, here and in another place, that the power of the Board to acquire and carry on a business will be exercised only where it is unable to interest private bodies or persons in a business that it considers is in the interests of an area.

Sir Raymond Gower: I am grateful for that assurance, but where in the Bill does that appear? I have been unable to find it so far.

Mr. Jones: Under the powers relating to business. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop the assurance that I am trying to give him.
The whole purpose is to assist and complement the development of an area. But we cannot allow a project which the Board thinks is in the interests of an area to be balked by unreasonable objections by private bodies which are not themselves willing to undertake the venture.
Clause 4(5)(c) specifically provides that the consent of the Secretary of State must be obtained by the Board to exercise this power. That consent will be given only when the proposed enterprise would benefit the local community and when the Board cannot interest private bodies or persons in the project. What is more, the Secretary of State would need, among other matters, to consider the viability of the project under consideration before giving his approval.
For these reasons, I urge the House to reject the amendment.

Sir A. Meyer: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down——

Mr. Barry Jones: I have sat down.

Sir A. Meyer: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his remarks——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has sat down.

12 midnight

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: When one listens to the Under-Secretary charmingly giving that sort of reply, one knows that he has not a very good case. It was the kind of case that we have heard him advance so often before when he


has turned to his advisers and said "We have not a very good argument, but produce some drafting points which will shoot the whole thing down in flames." I have already conceded that, as a result of the passing of an earlier amendment, this one is faulty and that perhaps it can be looked at again where the Bill started its proceedings—in another place.
Then the Under-Secretary said that it was the Government's intention and object to do all that was contained in my amendment. He proceeded to define the scope of the Board's activities as providing those functions of economic and social development which it felt were desirable and important, which would not he obtained in any other way and which private bodies refused or felt unable to provide.
Once again we have the Government giving declarations in Committee which they are not prepared to write into the Bill. If they are able to give these declarations and assurances, I cannot understand why they are so slap-happy and shoddy about their drafting. Why cannot they draft a Bill properly so that they do not have to give these repeated assurances about their intentions? We would like legislation to be drafted so that the Government's intentions are clearly spelled out.
It is because the Government repeatedly fail to do this that we criticise them. We would like the safeguards and Assurances on this point written into the Bill, just as we wanted them on agriculture, and we shall go on chasing the Government until we get some sensibly drafted Bills instead of the shambles usually presented to us.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 4, at end insert:
'(i) to provide financial assistance by way of grant or loan or partly by grant or partly by loan or by taking of equity in a company, to assist any person or persons proposing to carry out any activity in a manufacturing, extractive, agricultural, fisheries, forestry, land-use, recreation, tourist, or service industry which will contribute to the economic and social development of the area for which it is responsible.'
The purpose of the amendment is to lift into the Bill a major section of the Highlands and Islands Development Board Act which was omitted by the

draftsman. In our view, the amendment is crucial to make the Bill into a measure setting up a Development Board for Rural Wales in the full sense of the word. We cannot talk about development in a rural area heavily dependant for its employment on primary industry if development does not include the development and stimulus of primary industry as well as secondary manufacturing activities.
My major criticism of the Board is that it falls far short of a development board for rural Wales as envisaged by experts whom I shall not quote at this hour and as envisaged in practice by the Highlands and Islands Development Board in Scotland.
I know that the Minister will say, as he did in Committee, that the intention of the Board is to concentrate on manufacturing industry, to provide COSIRA loan powers and to do some work on social development as such.
In Scotland, the Highlands and Islands Development Board is to continue to function as an effective agency of regional intervention alongside the Scottish Development Agency, but retaining its financial assistance powers over a whole range of activities in primary as well as manufacturing industry.
The whole thinking behind the creation of the Board is that regional intervention on a technical level is necessary because of special problems. We need a Board for a given, defined area, because there are special problems. By limiting the powers of the Board to manufacturing industry, the Government seem to be arguing that it is only in that sphere that we ought to intervene, whereas I am arguing that many of the problems of Mid-Wales are concerned with its primary industries. If we are looking to job creation it must be job creation in land use, in recreation, in tourism, in extractive industry and in the other areas of industry which I have mentioned, not merely in manufacturing.
Indeed, at this time, by concentrating on looking for foot-loose manufacturing industry from outside the area, the Board may be following a dead end from the start in that we already have a substantial problem in Mid-Wales with the existing resources. The WDA has the same problem and has so far been unable to help us here.
In a situation of overall economic growth in the area we could manage the migrants from the Midlands overspill if they came into Mid-Wales, but in a situation of contraction the spin-off and the spill-over are no longer there. Therefore, by looking to manufacturing industry to provide the immediate growth in jobs, the Government and the Board may be making a fatal mistake in their economic plan. In the amendment we say that the Board must have powers over a full range of activities within its area and not be merely limited to manufacturing industry.
With regard to manufacturing industry, I do not want to repeat the arguments already made about the powers of the WDA and the relationship between the Board and the WDA. But, having read carefully the speeches of the Under-Secretary of State in Committee, I still fail to see the logic in giving the Board COSIRA loan powers and no other powers at all.
If I were a budding entrepreneur or the chairman of a co-operative and looking for an opportunity to develop, or for investment, I might consider COSIRA loan powers or assistance, but the rate is as high as the bank rate. It would not be a type of COSIRA loan that I would feel to be necessary but a form of equity participation by a Board such as this over a short period, which would give me an opportunity later of buying back the equity. But if I wanted that kind of assistance I should have to make, for example, one application to Aberystwyth, then another to Treforest, and, if I were in a difficult situation, I should be making a parallel application to the Industry Division of the Welsh Office in Cardiff.
We now have this plethora of bodies. The Secretary of State made a great peroration about it when we started off on Second Reading. That was the whole argument for creating an effective Board which would replace the many tiers of industrial assistance in the area. In place of the Development Commission and its range of assistance, we are now to have the Industry Division of the Welsh Office, the Welsh Development Agency, and this Board with its very limited COSIRA loan powers. I do not see the logic of transferring only these powers from the WDA to the Development Board for

Rural Wales. Again I am concerned that the WDA will of necessity not only be looking for its development opportunities in industrial South-East Wales and industrial North-East Wales but will also be tending to concentrate on the big fish, or on trying to develop or farm the big fish, whereas the people most in need of assistance in Mid-Wales are the smaller fish. It is the small man who needs a capital injection to help him expand from six to 10 or from 10 to 16 jobs. It is not the big projects which are looking for capital, but small projects which do not automatically turn to the merchant banks.
This is the whole success of Inverness as the centre of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. Decisions are made there in 24 hours on small-scale projects. That Board has been able to assist a whole range of small projects, not only in manufacturing but in other areas proposed in our amendment.
I mention specifically the extractive industry, not because I expect RTZ or some other international mining company to go to the Board and ask for help for starting copper mines, but because there are smaller slate quarries in my constituency which could do with a capital injection to develop new machinery and improve—particularly now that their regional development grants are being withdrawn from 1st April 1977. A number of these small enterprises have diversified into producing craft goods for the tourist industry, and that, too, would be more successful if actual capital injection was available for that purpose. As with the extractive industry, the Board will not be able to provide any financial assistance.
The position is similar with agriculture. We have specific agricultural needs in Mid-Wales. I know that the Minister will say that they are helped by ADAS and various other schemes, including the hill area special compensatory payments from EEC, and so on. In the case of Scotland, the Highlands and Islands Development Board gives assistance to expanding a herd of cows from 15 to 20, for example, and much finance has gone into small schemes of this kind. We have, in Merioneth, designated a hill project area, but this kind of development work on hill land is virtually useless unless there is capital to match it. If hill farming is to develop effectively in Mid. Wales, it will need capital injection like


that provided by the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and not provided here.
Agriculture is a primary source of employment in rural areas of Wales, as is forestry. Once again, the Board has no powers in this area. Our amendment would provide aid for afforestation in the areas I have been talking about—on small farms with hill land on which forests could be developed on a small scale. I am not talking here about pop-singers like Cliff Richard who have trees growing in my constituency. If we are talking about regional intervention in manufacturing industry, it is logical also to talk about the same thing in relation to afforestation.
As for fisheries, fish-farming could be a major industry in areas of Mid-Wales. Much of the work of the Highlands and Islands Development Board has been in providing aid for fisheries. Our Board could do much to innovate work which would not otherwise be done.

12.15 a.m.

Finally, I come to tourism and recreation. This, of course, is the major growth industry in Mid and rural Wales and it is a growth industry which has to be very carefully planned and developed. I think what applies to the Welsh Development Agency in the case of manufacturing industry and its relationship with the area and with potential developers also applies to the Welsh Tourist Board and its links with the area.

The Board's financial assistance is administered centrally from Cardiff and is not available on a local basis. I have discussed this with the Tourist Board and I can certainly say that there are many people within the Board who feel that the Board might be more effective if it were able to provide grant aid at regional offices rather than all the projects having to be dealt with through Cardiff. There might be a limitation on the amount available locally, but, as things stand, all grant aid for tourist projects has to go through Cardiff.

I am not complaining, because I have campaigned to get some of these projects off the ground and they are doing so with Welsh Office and Welsh Tourist Board money. But I am worried that the small hotelier who wants more bedrooms or who would like to carry out

a small tourist development is not getting any backing.

It is the smaller-scale development which would provide jobs in Wales but it is the larger development which will have more attention when the application is made to Cardiff. The tourist industry is the major job creator now, not manufacturing industry, and it is essential that there should be powers for the Board in this instance.

The logic of the amendment is to extend the powers of the Board. It would make it into a Development Board for Rural Wales in the full sense of the word, not merely one which concentrates on the manufacturing sector but one able to assist the whole economic activity in its area. The Government have accepted the logic of my amendment by giving some social powers to the Board but they are not prepared to go the full way and give the Board the whole range of economic development powers which I believe it must have.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) will know that I have sympathy for some of the things he says, though not all. I do not believe that we need a body with these very extensive economic powers that he believes would transform the situation, because, regrettably, I do not think that they would. I think that the central economic responsibility must remain with the Government. We have seen in so many instances how such organisations are powerless against disastrous decisions taken centrally by the Government.
For example, at the present time there are 53 Government factories and 44 advance factories standing empty in Wales. Needs are not met by the setting up of boards to build advance factories if the central economic management of the economy is wrong.
That is why I do not go the whole way with the hon. Gentleman and cannot urge my hon. Friends to support him on this occasion. In Committee, we voted with him on the basis that we liked the case he was advancing for trying to centralise functions in one organisation. I said then that the amendment he was moving on that occasion might not be satisfactory to be finally written into the Bill, but that perhaps


it could be looked at again on Report stage.
The point on which we agree with the hon. Member is that the Government have produced total nonsense in the relationship between the Development Agency and the Board. I intend to say more about that if we have a Third Reading debate. I content myself by saying that we think the relationship between the two organisations will be a shambles and that there will be total uncertainty.
All the extra explanations given by the Under-Secretary during our debates have added nothing to clarity. His repeated incantation that it was all a matter of COSIRA powers, a statement that he made every hour or so in Committee, did not resolve the problem. We think that more fundamental changes will be needed to sort this matter out. That is why we shall not support the amendment. It attempts to place powers which already exist with the Government largely in the Development Agency so that industrialists can look to one body rather than two or three. Nevertheless, we do not think that it gets down to the fundamentals of sorting out relationships between these two bodies. Therefore, we shall have to come back to the matter at some time to try to do the job, but we do not think that the amendment solves the problem.

Mr. Barry Jones: Everyone who served on the Committee will agree that we debated this matter at length and that we gave it a good airing. I shall therefore be brief.
The function of investment in industry, which is what the amendment is about, is a central function of the Welsh Development Agency. The Government do not intend that the Board should duplicate the Agency by having the power in its own right to assist companies or individuals by the direct provision of finance or by taking equity in a company. Investment in industry is a specialist function that in general is best left to the Agency. We think that specialist skills are required, and these will be available to the Agency. That makes that body the best channel of this type of direct assistance to industry. I therefore advise the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Minister's reply this evening has been almost as inadequate as was his reply in Committee. It was almost identical. I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas), and I am disappointed that the Conservatives cannot vote for the amendment in the way that they did in Committee. Presumably that is because of the late hour.
This is a fundamental amendment which makes the difference between the Board being a success and being a rather dismal failure. We have seen many reports about rural Wales. There was the Beacham report, the Roy Thomas Study, and the Welsh Council's report, among others. Now we have the opportunity to do something, and that opportunity is about to be lost. That is nothing short of tragic.
We have to see the economy of rural Wales as a sort of integrated whole. Policies which depend upon transferring entities from outside to solve these economic problems are doomed to fail. They will be subject to the rejection which is sometimes experienced in other walks of life when a totally alien development is introduced into a certain area.
The Board falls between several stools. It is not a rural board for Wales. There are other rural areas with similar problems to the area defined for the Board, but they are excluded. The fundamental weakness is that it is neither a co-ordinating board nor an all-embracing board. It could be one or the other, but it is neither. A few moments ago the Minister told us that there were too many nominated boards, but here we have another. It is to be responsible for economic development, but it is given none of the necessary powers for that function. It exists because there is a difference in the structure of rural areas compared with industrial areas, but it does not have the necessary powers to deal with those different circumstances. It is to do with rural Wales, but it has no powers to deal with the fundamental industry in rural Wales. It deals with an area where the major industry is tourism, but has no responsibilities in this direction. It deals with an area with a major extracting industry, but has no powers in this direction either.
The Minister said that the Board has powers to deal with manufacturing; yet the real powers to deal with manufacturing are enshrined in the Welsh Development Agency Act and cannot be used by the Board.
The Minister also referred to this being a matter for experts. But who are the experts? Are they those used by the Welsh Development Agency? They are merchant bankers from London who could be equally accessible to the Board if it were thought that these were the people to be dealing with the small acorns of Mid-Wales.
We want people to deal with industries rooted in an area, not those who are good with discounted cash flows and present value ratios, but are lost in a pile of statistics. The Minister spoke about the power of the COSIRA loans, but experience is not very encouraging in terms of the lack of information and reasons given to those who do not get loans. I hate to see these great weaknesses enshrined in the Bill.
Is the Board or the Agency to pioneer the industrial assault, on a small scale, with industries suited to the problems of rural areas? I suspect that the Agency cannot and will not give priority to this work, because it is an area which is being covered by the Board. Yet the Board will not have the power to do this for itself.
In Committee the Minister said that the Board had no powers to assist industry directly because of the expertise of the WDA. I suspect that this expertise will be hived off in a totally different direction. The Agency may know about the circumstances of Rhondda, Merthyr, Wrexham, Caernarvon or Cardiff, but what does it know of the situation in Llanuwchllyn, Abergynolwyn, Ciliau Aeron or Llanbrynmair?
I remember talking to someone from Llanbrynmair when the late Jim Griffiths' new town was going to solve all the area's economic problems. It was pointed out that a factory of British Leyland might move in to solve the problems, and

the man said "But then it will not be Llanbrynmair." That is the reality of the situation. An answer to the problems of Cardiff and Wrexham will not be suitable for the rural areas. The Government seem to have missed this point.

We are dealing with small units, small acorns, family companies. It is much more important to know the background of the community in which people live, the interrelationship between them and other aspects of the community than to have analysts at arm's length who know everything about figures but are ignorant of these circumstances.

The 1973 report of the Welsh Council stated in strong terms that it had been impressed by what had been learned from the work of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. It hesitated to advocate such an approach in Wales only because of the impending local government re-organisation. No one could say that the re-organisation has provided an answer for rural Wales, and the case made by the Welsh Council for the granting of powers similar to those of the Highlands and Islands Development Board remains strong.

I thought about moving amendments to bring areas of my constituency within the ambit of the Board, but I decided not to because the Board is neither one thing nor the other. It will not add a jot to solving the problems of my area. With this amendment enshrined in the Act, there would at least be some possibility of help. At present the Bill represents an opportunity lost.

Mr. Roderick: Will the hon. Gentleman vote against it?

Mr. Wigley: It is not a question of voting against it. There is an opportunity, which the Government side, as much as any other, has always wanted, now going through the window. It is tragic.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 6, Noes 78.

Division No. 361.]
AYES
[12.30 a.m.


Beith, A. J.
Howells, Geralnt (Cardigan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Penhaligon, David
Mr. D. E. Thomas and


Hooson, Emlyn
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. Dafydd Wigley.




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Anderson, Donald
Harper, Joseph
Palmer, Arthur


Archer, Peter
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Armstrong, Ernest
Hooley, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn


Ashton, Joe
Huckfield, Les
Rooker, J. W.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Rowlands, Ted


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ryman, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hunter, Adam
Skinner, Dennis


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Small, William


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
John, Brynmor
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Campbell, Ian
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Spearing, Nigel


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Stallard, A. W.


Cocks, Fit Hon Michael
Judd, Frank
Stoddart, David


Conlan, Bernard
Kerr, Russell
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lamond, James
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Cryer, Bob
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Dalyell, Tam
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McCartney, Hugh
White, James (Pollock)


Deakins, Eric
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McElhone, Frank
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Dormand, J. D.
Madden, Max
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Woodall, Alec


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mendelson, John
Woof, Robert


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mikardo, Ian



Evans, John (Newton)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Golding, John
Ogden, Eric
Mr. Alf Bates.


Graham, Ted

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 5, line 5, after 'include', insert:
'in so far only as they are incidental to the Board's other functions'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 12, in page 5, line 6, at end insert:
but this shall not empower the Board to acquire by agreement, hold and dispose of land in their area for the purpose of affecting amalgamation of agricultural land or the reshaping of agricultural units'.

No. 16, in page 5, line 30, at end insert:
'(8A) For the avoidance of doubt, the powers of the Board under this section shall not be construed as allowing the acquisition by agreement or compulsion, the holding or disposal of land in their area for the purpose of affecting amalgamation of agricultural land or the reshaping of agricultural units.'.

Mr. Edwards: In Committee, and in another place, repeated attempts were made to write into the Bill safeguards for the agricultural industry. In Committee the Government steadfastly refused to accept amendments which would have further limited the powers of the proposed Board to acquire agricultural land and to carry out agricultural or forestry operations on such land. Instead, the Government introduced amendments of their own which are now embodied in Clauses 1(4) and 4(2). The Government also accepted an Opposition amendment which is now Clause 4(8).

While the latter amendment, though general in nature, is an improvement, the Government amendments are far from reassuring to the agricultural industry.
Declarations have been made by the Under-Secretary of State that the Government do not intend the Board to use its powers to restructure agricultural holdings, as was the intention of the rural development board proposed in 1969 under the provisions of the Agriculture Act 1967, but that reassurance has not been written into the Bill. The Government amendments still leave a loophole in the Board's ability to engage in agricultural and forestry operations, which can be seen as a disguised means of reintroducing the earlier proposals for a rural development board. No doubt the Under-Secretary of State will repeat the assurance that he, the Lord Chancellor and others have given on this matter.
The trouble is that we are dealing not just with the present Government's intention. We are passing a Bill which when enacted will stand on the statute book for a long time and which future Governments may decide to interpret differently. In Committee the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) argued in almost violent terms that the Government were wrong to give this assurance and that he would like the power to be used in that way. We fear that there are Government supporters who, given the opportunity in future, might decide that it was not worth getting another Bill through the House and who


would wish to use this Bill for the purpose.
I return to what I said in an earlier debate about psychology and confidence. As the Government are slowly and painfully beginning to realise, our economy is suffering from lack of confidence in the Government's administrative apparatus Here the Government are destroying confidence in the farming industry, which is vital to our economic survival and which should be encouraged to increase production so that we have to place less reliance on imports.

12.45 a.m.

At the very time when the farming industry has to cope with all the embarrassments caused by the gross distortion of the green pound, by heavy taxation, and by rising costs, it has the added embarrassment of not knowing the future intentions of the Government. It must be suspicious if the Government refuse to write into the Bill reasonable amendments which would allow them to do the things they say that they want to do and prevent them from doing the things that they say they do not want to do. We cannot understand why the Government do not draft the Bill in such a way that we do not have to spend hours debating issues of this nature.

We have accepted that it is perfectly reasonable for certain activities to be carried on. I do not argue with the fact that if someone buys land to establish a factory, it must be sensible to go on farming that land for a time before building the factory. There is land in my constituency which is bought by oil companies and used by them for other purposes before they subsequently build oil refineries.

The fears I have referred to about a loophole exist especially because Clause 4(2), in conjunction with Clause 4(1)(h). allows
the carrying out of agricultural operations
in a wide number of circumstances where it would
facilitate the discharge of the Board's functions or
be
incidental or conducive to their discharge".
Read in conjunction with Clause 4(1)(g), it could provide the Board with wider powers than the Government suggest or the farming community would wish.

Indeed, the powers are further extended by Clause 4(3), which will enable them to be exercised in relation to the carrying out of agricultural operations outside the Board's area—that is, in the whole of rural Wales. Perhaps it is the one area where the Board is able to operate in the whole of rural Wales.

We seek in Amendment No. 11 to stress the incidental nature of any agricultural operations or any forestry operations which the Board might undertake. We do not object to its undertaking operations of the kind I described briefly in relation to the oil company or in relation to the acquisition of land. If it found itself for some reason having to carry on operations of that kind, that would not seem to be unreasonable, and we think that it could be perfectly easily written into the Bill.

The other two amendments would close the loophole I have identified and allay the fears of the farming community. I propose that we should make use of the wording in Section 48 of the Agriculture Act 1967, dealing with the powers of a rural development board to promote amalgamations or boundary adjustments, in order to exclude from the Board's remit the powers which would have been available to the Wales rural development board.

Amendment No. 12 seeks to insert the words:
but this shall not empower the Board to acquire by agreement, hold and dispose of land in their area for the purpose of affecting amalgamation of agricultural land or the reshaping of agricultural units.
There is an express disclaimer of what the Government have disclaimed verbally in Committee. The intention of both Amendment No. 12 and Amendment No. 16 is to narrow the scope of the power granted to the Board. Under the amendments, the Board would still be able to carry out agricultural operations but it would not be able to set itself up as an old-style development board.

The Government cannot challenge the wording in principle because it is taken from Section 48 of the Agriculture Act 1947, which laid down detailed provisions for amalgamation schemes. The main introductory wording comes from that section.

I see no reason why one or other of our amendments should not be accepted.


They do not challenge the Board's functions but merely insert into the Bill that which the Minister said in Standing Committee. That is all that we ask. He said:
I hope I can convince Opposition Members by giving them these details, and that we were in earnest in what we have per previously said".—[Offical Report, Standing Committee K, 22nd July 1976; c. 59]
He will convince us by belatedly accepting our amendments.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I support the amendment. We need a written assurance in the Bill. Safeguards are needed by the agricultural industry and especially by the small farmers. Unless the safeguards are written into the Bill, small farmers in rural Wales will be worried. When the last rural development board Bill was introduced they were worried about its being an incursion into the liberty of the individual. We therefore want to ensure that the agriculture sector will work in harmony with the rural development board in Wales.
Perhaps in five or 10 years' time members of the Board will take a different view from that now taken by Ministers. Perhaps they will want to take over non-viable units, although it is difficult to define a non-viable unit. Whether a small acreage is viable often depends upon the farmer. Farmers have an important role in the economic and social life of rural Wales, and we need an assurance written into the Bill so that their minds can rest easy in the years ahead.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards). In Committee I argued strongly against the inclusion of subsection (2), which was introduced there as Amendment No. 38. The number is clearly engrained in my mind. It seemed to me then that the insertion of the subsection, which allowed
the carrying out of agricultural operations and the carrying on of forestry and afforestation",
was in contradiction of the assurances given by the Lord Chancellor. The Minister claimed in Committee that the subsection was a fulfilment of the assurances given in the other place, but I have read it again and again and I cannot see that that is so. Rather, it contradicts the Government's assurances.
Therefore, I fully support in particular Amendments Nos. 11 and 12, which are amendments to the subsection. They are clearly necessary to give any substance to the assurances given by the Minister and the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. Barry Jones: I hope that I can show the Opposition that their fears are unjustified. I certainly advise the House to reject the amendments.
The Bill will not be used to restructure agriculture. Clause 1(6) states categorically that
the Board shall not engage in farming any land held by it or in forestry or afforestation on such land",
except, under Clause 4(1)(h), when this
is likely to facilitate the discharge of the Board's functions or is incidental or conducive to their discharge.
To this end the Board will have to buy and manage agricultural land pending its development—as, say, an industrial estate, or for housing and related urban purposes. The Board is, however, otherwise precluded by the provisions of the Bill from acquiring land for farming or for forestry.
Subsection (8) requires the Board to
have regard to the need to conserve agricultural land and to the requirements of agriculture and efficient land management.
The Government accepted an Opposition amendment to that effect in Committee, yet the Opposition are still not content. In principle, therefore, this group of amendments is objectionable.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Does not the Minister agree that Clause 1(6) is in itself a contradiction of Clause 4(2)?

Mr. Jones: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's interpretation.
I advise the House to reject Amendment No. 11 on the ground that any agricultural operations which the Board undertakes in the short term on land which it ultimately intends to develop cannot be incidental to such functions but must facilitate or be conducive to the discharge of its functions. We feel that the wording must be retained in the Bill as it stands and that the amendment should be rejected.

1.0 a.m.

Amendment No. 12 is defective because subsection (2) does not authorise


the acquisition, holding or disposal of land, and the assumption on what the amendment is based is therefore incorrect. Again, I advise the House to reject it.

We believe that Amendment No. 16 is badly drafted. In the context of subsection (8) insertion of the words
for the avoidance of doubt
is inappropriate. There is no doubt that the Board could not purchase agricultural land if the only purpose was to amalgamate or reshape. Therefore, apart from drafting deficiencies, the amendment is objectionable in principle.

It is inevitable that at times the Board in properly discharging its functions will in a sense—although not in the sense intended by the Opposition—be required to increase or reduce the area of an agricultural unit. For instance, if the Board is not allowed to effect the amalgamation of agricultural land—and it is assumed that this may be construed as amalgamating fields or holdings—pending development of the land, the power of the Board to manage effectively the land it has acquired for legitimate reasons will be undermined.

Again, if the Board could not amalgamate land, it could not acquire agricultural land from separate owners for playing fields. To quote yet another example, the Board would not always want to acquire an entire agricultural unit. Yet this amendment would require it to do so, as otherwise in acquiring part of a unit it could be said to be reshaping an agricultural unit.

Sir Raymond Gower: How does the Minister explain his assertion that the Board cannot acquire the land? Clause 4(1)(a) reads
to acquire, hold, manage, develop and dispose of land or other property".
That is not a narrow purpose but represents a general power.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Member is a distinguished lawyer but I must stand by my argument. Obviously the Opposition by their amendment do not wish to prejudice the proper discharge of the Board's function. Their concern, which I appreciate, is that the wide powers given to the Board should not be used for the primary purpose of restructuring agriculture. I repeat the assurance that they will not be so used. I repeat that

the Board will not restructure agriculture, and the Bill gives the Secretary of State the powers of direction and consent for the disposal of land which will ensure that the Board will not exercise its powers in such a manner as to restructure agriculture in its area. I hope that the House will reject the amendments.

Sir Raymond Gower: I believe the Minister speaks in good faith when he says that the Board will not do these things, but as the Bill stands it gives power to the Board to acquire land. He will know that Clause 4(2) gives powers relating to
the carrying on of forestry and afforestation".
Those powers are not limited in the manner he seeks to suggest. Indeed, his assurances will not be worth the paper they are printed on in tomorrow's Hansard.
The Minister's reply was disappointing and indaquate. Some years ago farmers throughout the rural areas were apprehensive about the operations of the Forestry Commission, even though those fears may well have been groundless. Similarly, for good reasons or bad, they are now apprehensive about the powers given to the Board, which go beyond any protection given by the Bill. It does not include the Minister's assurances, and that is why I hope that we shall vote for the amendment.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: My views have hardened during the debate. I had thought that, having fought this battle for a long time, we should, regretfully, admit defeat in the face of the Govern-men's peculiar obstinacy. But it is just that obstinacy which makes me suspect their intentions.
It is not good enough for the Government to raise a series of pedantic drafting objections. They have known throughout what our fears were, and if they felt that our amendments were technically deficient, they could have remedied that themselves. It is pretty ridiculous to say that the amendment might prevent the Board from acquiring land for playing fields. I am not convinced by the argument that the development of rural Wales could not carry on without the Board acquiring playing fields.
Although what my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) and


the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) said carried considerable weight, the final crunch came for me when the Minister, in his quiet and friendly way, referred again to the possibility of direction. It is precisely this power of direction which gives rise to our fears. I am worried not about the members of the Board who will carry out these functions but about members of the Government and future Governments. The Minister apparently regards direction as a protection for people: we see it as a danger in an increasingly extreme Left-wing Government—
—

Mr. Barry Jones: indicated dissent.

Mr. Edwards: Yes—an increasingly extreme Left-wing Government. Neither the Minister's smiling dissent nor the opinions of the Welsh National Party will persuade me that that threat does not exist. It is because of this power of direction and because the Minister has again totally failed to reply to the debate that I urge my hon. Friends to support

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 13, in page 5, line 12, at end insert—
'(4A) The conditions which may be attached to the provision of finance under this section include conditions for repayment of the whole

at least one of the amendments. Because of its parentage, in an Act drafted by a previous Labour Government, I believe that the one to support is Amendment No. 12. Therefore, I shall not seek to press Amendment No. 11, but ask my hon. Friends to support No. 12.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Does the hon. Gentleman seek the leave of the House to withdraw Amendment No. 11?

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Yes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 12, in page 5, line 6, at end insert
'but this shall not empower the Board to acquire by agreement, hold and dispose of land in their area for the purpose of affecting amalgamation of agricultural land or the reshaping of agricultural units'.—[Mr. Nicholas Edwards.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 10, Noes 72.
or any part of a grant in any circumstances'.—[Mr. Barry Jones.]

Division No. 362.]
AYES
[1.10 a.m.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)



Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grist, Ian
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Mr. John Stradling Thomas and


Hooson, Emlyn
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Mr. Michael Roberts.


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)





NOES


Allaun, Frank
Golding, John
Richardson, Miss Jo


Anderson, Donald
Graham, Ted
Roderick, Caerwyn


Archer, Peter
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Rowlands, Ted


Armstrong, Ernest
Huckfield, Les
Ryman, John


Ashton, Joe
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Skinner, Dennis


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Small, William


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hunter, Adam
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Bates, Alf
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Snape, Peter


Bray, Dr Jeremy
John, Brynmor
Spearing, Nigel


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Stallard, A. W.


Campbell, Ian
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Stoddart, David


Canavan, Dennis
Judd, Frank
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Lamond, James
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Coleman, Donald
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
McCartney, Hugh
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Cryer, Bob
McElhone, Frank
White, James (Pollok)


Dalyell, Tam
Madden, Max
Wigley, Dafydd


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Deakins, Eric
Mendelson, John
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Dormand, J. D.
Mikardo, Ian
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Woodall, Alec


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)



Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Ogden, Eric
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Evans, John (Newton)
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. James Hamilton.


Fraser, John (Lambeth. N'w'd)

Sir Raymond Gower: This amendment refers to the repayment of whole or part of a grant. Earlier the clause refers to a loan or grant. Surely if conditions


are made for the repayment of a grant it is a loan.

Mr. Barry Jones: This amendment gives power to the Board when giving financial assistance to impose conditions, including conditions that may provide for the repayment in certain specified circumstances of all or part of any grants made.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 14, in page 5, line 13, leave out 'Subject to subsection (6) below,'.

No. 15, in page 5, line 20, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Barry Jones.]

Clause 5

NEW TOWNS WITHIN THE BOARD'S AREA

Amendment made: No. 17, in page 5, line 45, at end insert
'(to the exclusion of any corresponding provision of that Act which is capable of applying within the area for which the Board is responsible)'.—[Mr. Barry Jones.]

Clause 21

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TOWARDS TENANT'S REMOVAL EXPENSES

Amendment made: No. 20, in page 15, line 41, leave out '1()' and insert '2'.—[Mr. Barry Jones.]


'1. Statutory undertakers authorised to carry on any railway, light railway, tramway, road transport, dock, harbour or pier undertaking.
The Secretary of State for Transport.


2. Statutory undertakers authorised to carry on any water transport, canal or inland navigation undertaking.
The Secretary of State for the Environment'.


—[Mr. Barry Jones.

Order for Third Reading read [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

1.23 a.m.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I do so with some pride, but the House will forgive me if I do not do so at length. As the House knows, the Board will begin its functions on 1st April 1977, but we intend to establish the Board and

Orders of the Day — Schedule 1

THE DEVELOPMENT BOARD FOR RURAL WALES

Amendments made: No. 21, in page 24, leave out paragraph 17.

No. 23, in page 25, line 3, leave out '1()'and insert '2'.

No. 25, in page 25, line 12, leave out '1(1)' and insert '2'.—[Mr. Barry Jones.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2

PROVISIONS AS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL WALES CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL

Amendments made: No. 27, in page 26, line 35, leave out Schedule 2.

No. 28, in page 27, line 28, leave out 'Treasury' and insert
'Minister for the Civil Service'.—[Mr. Barry Jones.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 4

THE NEW TOWNS CODE

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 57, line 23, after 'authority', insert
'or, where the provision confers or imposes a function on or provides for a thing to be done by or to a local authority, as if the Board were a local authority)'.

No. 30, in page 61, leave out lines 7 to 12 and insert:

appoint the members as soon as the Bill has Royal Assent and before the end of the year. The Board will then act in a shadow capacity until 1st April next year, preparing for its task.

I intend to appoint Mr. Emrys Roberts as the Chairman. He has been a Member of this House, and Chairman of the Mid-Wales Development Corporation since its inception in 1968. No one is more familiar with the problems of rural Wales and the problems facing the Board. As


a leader, Mr. Roberts will give guidance based on wisdom and experience.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the announcement he has just made of the appointment of Mr. Emrys Roberts will be widely welcomed in Wales in view of the outstanding contribution he has made over the years as Chairman of the Mid-Wales Development Corporation? Will my right hon. and learned Friend indicate how long a term Mr. Emrys Roberts will have?

Mr. Morris: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's remarks. He was responsible for originally appointing Mr. Roberts Chairman of the Mid-Wales Development Corporation, which has been such a success. Mr. Roberts's term of office will run from his date of appointment to two years from the end of next March. Therefore it will be an initial period of about two and a half years.
We shall also be advertising very shortly the appointment of chief executive of the Board to be filled early in the new year. When the Board takes over its responsibilities in April 1977, it will also take over the staff of the Mid-Wales Development Corporation. At the same time the staff of COSIRA who work wholly or mainly in Wales will be taken over by the Welsh Development Agency.
I am anxious that the assimilation of these staffs into their new organisations should take place smoothly with the minimum of disruption. Discussions and some preliminary meetings have already taken place with staff representatives and every effort will continue to be made to ensure that staff interests will be fully taken into account at the changeover. It is important that the staff should know that we are concerned about their interests. I should like to repeat the assurance given at Second Reading that the power conferred by Clause 26 will be used to continue the support at present being given by the Development Commission towards rural councils—successor bodies to the rural community councils—and the voluntary services committees.
As to the Council for Social Services for Wales, hon. Members will know that the Council's rôle is changing. Bodies concerned with the elderly and the dis-

abled have already resolved to end their direct relationship with the Council. But we are prepared to continue to make grants to the Council in relation to activities where support from the Welsh Office is appropriate in the changing circumstances. We are presently awaiting proposals from the Council.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Council is concerned about the disappearance of the Development Commission because it has been contributing as much as £18,000 to £20,000 a year to the Council? Is it intended that that sum should be replaced under Clause 26?

Mr. Morris: The rôle of this body is changing and we are now awaiting proposals from the Council which we will look at sympathetically.
I ask the House to give the Bill a Third Reading.

1.28 a.m.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I should like to start by wishing all good fortune to Mr. Emrys Roberts and his colleagues, and by wishing the Board success in its activities. We must all hope that the Board will help in some way to alleviate the very serious problems that confront the people of Mid-Wales.
In order to assist the House, I cut short some of my remarks earlier in our proceedings and I hope the House will therefore forgive me if I return to just a few points now. Faced with the present situation, the Board will need good fortune. That is amply borne out by the current unemployment figures for the area.
We must be thankful that in Powys the rate of unemployment in October was only 5·9 per cent., but it is 11·1 per cent. in Gwynedd, 8·6 per cent. in Dyfed and 9·8 per cent. in Clwyd. Some of the individual figures are much higher—18·4 per cent. in Cardigan, 16·3 per cent. in Lampeter and 15·4 per cent. in Tywyn PTO—and one could go on. It is against that background that the Board will have to operate.
Once again it has been emphasised that the Government's overall management of the economy and not the activities of the Board or the Agency will decide the fate of rural Wales. The unfortunate Development Agency, which went into operation


about nine months ago, has had to struggle against the consequences of the Labour Government's folly. The huge burden of Government expenditure, with inflation, the record interest rates and the administrative burden that result from it, has been killing off the small businesses which are the backbone of rural Wales. What can the Board do, however able it may be, if it is subject to the detailed control of an incompetent Government? How will it fare if it has to contend with the payroll tax, the crippling interest rates and the other latest manifestations of the Chancellor's folly?
The one good possibility is that in some way the Board may be able to mitigate the full consequences of Government mismanagement. It may be able to use its own judgment to deal with the practical problems it will face. It is for that reason that the powers of direction that we discussed earlier are so alarming. They alarm me particularly in the light of a remarkable policy statement issued recently by the Pembrokeshire Labour Party. If taken at its face value, that would indicate that the Government intend to use their powers of direction in a way never envisaged by many of us who have been engaged in the various stages of the Bill.
You might feel, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that for the Pembrokeshire Labour Party to put forward proposals for alleviating unemployment and to suggest how the Board should operate is a pretty incredible piece of effrontery when the policies of a Labour Government have put 4,213 of my constituents out of work—that is one in every five of the insured population. That is more than double the figure in any previous October since the war. What the Pembrokeshire Labour Party says, however, is directly relevant to what we have been discussing. It has proposed, among other things, that 3 per cent. of what it claims to be the Development Agency's funds of £250 million is to be devoted to Pembrokeshire and that this is more than could be obtained on a purely per capita basis. It says also that offices of the WDA and the Board should be set up in Pembrokeshire.
It may be an apt comment on Socialist financial irresponsibility that the Pembrokeshire Labour Party should overstate

the WDA budget by £100 million, and is apparently so ignorant of the population of Wales and Pembrokeshire that on the per capita basis it actually attempts to cheat the constituency of its entitlement. I am concerned about the implication that the Board will be directed by the Government to establish an office in a part of the country where it does not even have a responsibility and to spend a disproportionate share of its budget to deal with the problems there.
If all this was to happen it would have to be by direction. But what if the Board felt that this was not the right way to allocate its resources? What would be the reaction in other parts of rural Wales where unemployment was equally high? The distribution of resources should be made equitably on the judgment of the Board or the Agency. To switch resources around for immediate political considerations seems to have dangerous implications. Perhaps the Government will say that they have no intention of doing what is advocated by the Pembrokeshire Labour Party, and that its statement is no more than so much hogwash. They should tell us. Is this what the Government have in mind, or is it a form of fantasising by the Pembroke Labour Party?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should point out that what the Pembroke Labour Party has to say is not involved in the Bill.

Mr. Edwards: Having made my point, I am happy to move on.
One matter which has been causing anxiety was raised with me by Mr. Davies, Chairman of the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association, who has written about the statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment about the switch in emphasis in Government policy to inner city areas. Mr. Davies says that the Council of the Association had been concerned to note the statement and adds that it would help if Welsh Members sought an assurance that the new policy would not be detrimental to the Association's efforts to carry forward developments in Mid-Wales. I hope that we can have that assurance from the Government.
Another matter which has been debated at length is the relationship between the Agency and the Board. This side of the


House—not just the Conservative Party—feels that the geographical and organisational boundaries are wholly unsatisfactory. The geographical boundaries will always be unsatisfactory because the Government have sought to divide something which cannot be divided and to define something which cannot be precisely defined. Equally, we are convinced that the division of responsibilities is unclear and unworkable.
It is a matter of opinion and dispute whether it is an advantage or a disadvantage to be under the Board or the Agency. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) made this clear earlier. Some feel that they would like the powers of the Board to extend to their area while others prefer to benefit from the all-Wales powers of the Agency.
No one can be satisfied with the present confusion and uncertainty. That confusion is shown by the fact that there are proposals for the Board to establish offices outside its own area. The division of responsibilities is not clear to all hon. Members, and I do not blame them for that. The Secretary of State has told us that the Agency is an all-Wales body with a remit from Gwynedd to Gwent, yet we are also told that it will be too busy to give much thought to rural Wales.
The Board will deal with advance factories, and I dare say that the Agency will be thankful to be relieved of that responsibility at a time when most advance factories in Wales are standing empty. The Agency will be able to delegate powers to the Board, though not the power to provide assistance under the Industry Act. The ordinary businessman can hardly be expected to know where to turn in these circumstances.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts said that the Agency would retain its functions as a pump primer in rural Wales and the Under-Secretary has explained that this means that the Agency will retain its industrial investment assistance functions. The Under-Secretary said in Committee that the Board would do its bit as a pump primer by the provision of advance factories, its power to impose infrastructure and its new town functions. However, even that is not the whole answer and does not eliminate the confusion.
Whenever we pressed the Undersecretary in Committee, he mouthed his incantation about COSIRA. The Agency will be responsible for direct assistance to industry, but it will delegate the COSIRA functions to the Board. The difficulty about that is that the COSIRA functions involve direct assistance to industry. We have the confusing situation that while COSIRA funds are to be delegated to the Board, the COSIRA powers and staff will go very largely to the Agency. There will be about 20 COSIRA staff of the Agency concerned with that part of rural Wales left out of the Board's responsibilities.
To summarise, we think that the Government have produced a total muddle. If one has to have a separate Board, the logical boundaries should be based on the Welsh Council's definition in the 1971 report. This is something to be looked at again, fairly soon, under the powers provided in the Bill. It seems a pity that in producing a Bill which could have tidied up and helped to improve the situation in rural Wales, the Government have produced quite unnecessary chaos. It will be urgently necessary, at a very early stage, to re-examine the boundaries. Although we shall have to judge the matter in the light of experience, we may also in due course have to revert to the proposal that we put forward at the Report stage of the Welsh Development Agency Bill and absorb the powers now given to this Board with those of the Agency.
I do not believe that the Bill will provide the long-term solutions that we are seeking. I agreed with the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) when he suggested that an opportunity had been wasted. It has. We shall have lo come back to this matter again to clear up the mess that the Government have left us.

1.42 a.m.

Mr. Roderick: I welcome this stage of the Bill. It is difficult to detect the support of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) for the Bill. He has poured so much cold water over it from beginning to end that it would have been more honest if he had opposed it wholeheartedly. I am glad that I was not tempted by the hon. Gentleman during one stage of the passage of the


Welsh Development Agency Act to support his amendment to create a kind of sub-committee to perform the functions, as he said that this Bill will perform. I hope that the Bill will go from strength to strength. My faith in my right hon. and learned Friend has been vindicated in that I was not tempted to support the hon. Gentleman's amendments.
My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned Clause 26. I welcomed his remarks regarding the continuing support for the Council for Social Services and for various voluntary agencies. He says that he is awaiting suggestions from the Council for Social Services on its changing role. May we take it that he will ensure that the Council continues in its present form until it seeks a change in its structure?
With those few remarks, I wholeheartedly welcome the Third Reading of the Bill.

1.44 a.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I congratulate the Government on achieving the Third Reading of the Bill. I have experience of the Mid-Wales Development Corporation at Newtown. I know that it can and does make a substantial contribution to the economic well-being of the area. It is a matter of great reassurance for us to see that Mr. Emrys Roberts, who has performed his tasks so very well in Newtown, will be the Chairman of the Development Board for Rural Wales. The Secretary of State is to be congratulated on making that appointment. I am sure that everyone who knows Mr. Emrys Roberts and the contribution that he has made will have full confidence that he is well aware of the social and cultural implications of the policy as well as the economic implications.
I particularly welcome the achievement of the Development Board for Rural Wales because of its potential. Under the present economic constraints, we must be realistic. The Board can make but a very modest contribution. Most of its money will undoubtedly have been earmarked for Newtown, I imagine, for the next couple of years. However, it can be gradually built up and its area extended. In that way it can make a real contribution towards the economic well-

being of Mid-Wales. Clearly without Mid-Wales having economic well-being, its social and cultural well-being will be in jeopardy.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I, too, welcome the Bill's Third Reading and congratulate the Secretary of State. I have been critical of some of his appointments to public bodies in Wales in the past, but in this case I congratulate him. Mr. Emrys Roberts is one of my predecessors as he was the Member for Merioneth. He has worked in industry in the Midlands and has enjoyed distinctive achievement at Newtown. That experience will stand the Board in good stead as well as the Welsh Development Agency, bearing in mind that he will be a member of both bodies. I hope that the liaison between both bodies, which we have discussed, will be substantially improved by the appointment of Mr. Roberts.
Many of us have dreamed of an interventionist authority in rural Wales of the sort outlined in the Bill. Perhaps some Opposition Members, including the official Opposition spokesman for Welsh Affairs, have not shown the sensitivity towards the problems of rural Wales when discussing the Bill that one would have expected. Perhaps I am expecting too much to except that sort of sensitivity from the Conservative Party.
The lack of a framework of economic development in rural Wales has meant that the social fabric of the community has declined. We look to the Bill to introduce a pattern of economic development that will sustain the population in Mid-Wales so that it does not have to suffer from the social collapse that has affected it for so long.
The Bill is at last one concrete attempt to tackle the problems. We have spoken about the problems of Mid-Wales for so long and here is a positive attempt by the Government to tackle them. I pay tribute to them for having advanced the Bill.
Finally, I welcome what the Secretary of State said on Clause 26, although I should like more clarification. Many of us were concerned to see the report in the Western Mail on Thursday 28th October by the Welsh Affairs Correspondent. It refers to the axe poised over the social councils. It is not clear precisely what the Secretary of State


meant in his remarks about expecting a report from the Council. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will clarify the matter.

1.48 a.m.

Mr. Barry Jones: It is in the nature of things that the Welsh Development Agency and the Board co-operate closely. That is why the Bill made provision for the enlargement of the membership of the Agency and the appointment of the Board's chairman as a member of the Agency. The idea is to secure a harmonious relationship between the Board and the Agency. I am glad that the appointment of Mr. Emrys Roberts has been welcomed so positively by the House.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) spoke about unemployment. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the correct economic strategy, and that and the Development Board for Rural Wales will help rural Wales considerably in the fullness of time. The Opposition do not have the monopoly of concern for small businesses. The Government care for small businesses.
Powers of direction are in part a democratic factor. If we did not have the powers of direction for the Secretary of State, the nominated bodies would be not responsible to the House in that sense.
As for the inner city regions and the Development Board for Rural Wales, there is no indication that the funding of the DBRW will be in any way affected.
Finally, I take up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick), who has struggled so heroically for rural Wales, and a query raised by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas). I repeat the assurance given on Second Reading—that the power conferred by Clause 26 will be used to continue the support at present being given by the development corporations to the rural councils—which are the successor bodies to the rural community councils and the voluntary services committees.
The rôle of the Council for Social Services for Wales, as hon. Members know,

is changing. Bodies concerned with the elderly and disabled have already resolved to end their direct relationship with the Council, but we are prepared to continue making grants to it for activities for which support from the Welsh Office is appropriate in the changing circumstances. We are awaiting proposals from the Council.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Orders of the Day — EXPENDITURE

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 18th November in the last Session of Parliament relating to nomination of Members of the Select Committee on Expenditure, Sir John Eden and Mr. A. E. P. Duffy be discharged from the Committee and Mr. Neville Trotter and Mr. Robin Corbett be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament:

Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Waller Harrison.]

Orders of the Day — PROCEDURE

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 15th June relating to nomination of Members of the Select Committee on Procedure, Mr. Nicholas Ridley be discharged from the Committee and Mr. William Shelton be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament:

Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Orders of the Day — SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 21st November in the last Session of Parliament relating to nomination of Members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, Dr. John Cunningham be discharged from the Committee and Mr. Ken Weetch be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament:

Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN SECONDARY LEGISLATION, &c.

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 18th November in the last Session of Parliament relating to nomination of Members of the Select Committee on European Secondary Legislation. &amp;c, Dr. J. Dickson Mabon be discharged from the Committee and Mr. Ron Thomas be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament:

Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Waller Harrison.]

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 3rd December relating to nomination of Members of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, Mr. Bob Cryer be discharged from the Committee and Mr. Terry Walker be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament:

Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Orders of the Day — TRANSMISSION LINE TOWERS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

1.50 a.m.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I thank the Minister for coming to the House at this late hour to discuss the United Kingdom manufacturing capacity for transmission line towers. My purpose in raising the matter is to draw the Minister's attention to the possibility of a nonsense arising by the promotion of an over-subscription of manufacturing capacity for transmission line towers through the allocation of public funds administered by the Scottish Development Agency.
I am told by the British Constructional Steel Works Association that eight companies are currently involved in the fabrication of transmission towers in the United Kingdom, the largest being Painter Brothers Limited, located in my con-

stituency of Hereford, with a capacity of 18,500 tonnes per annum. There are two other companies in Hereford—Hereford Welding, with a capacity of 300 tonnes per annum, and Urry Fabrications Limited, with a capacity of 500 tonnes per annum. Two further companies located in Scotland are Hadingtonshire Fabricators and Park Lea, with capacities of 1,000 and 3,000 tonnes respectively, the balance of the 29,300 tonnes per annum total capacity of the industry being made up of Braithwaite and Company of Newport, Clarke Chapman Limited of Tipton and CGS of Peterborough, with 2,000 tonnes, 3,000 tonnes and 1,000 tonnes respectively.
The Minister will note that the available capacity is spread fairly widely over the United Kingdom, although the greatest part is located in Hereford. With its location on mainline railways serving north, south, east and west, and its proximity to the motorway network, Hereford is well situated to supply contracts in any part of the United Kingdom.
I have said that the current capacity is approximately 30,000 tonnes per annum, but the current market volume is only about 10,000 tonnes per annum, although the peak demand in 1966 was 70.000 tonnes per annum. Since that time there has been a steadily falling demand, and this resulted in the liquidation two years ago of the other major fabricator, Lothian Structural Development. This company previously had 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. of the United Kingdom market, but was shut down due to the decline in orders. For similar reasons Painter Brothers of Hereford had to shut down a satellite factory in Cinder-ford in the Forest of Dean.
The future trends of demand are not encouraging. In 1977 the requirements of the four major customers, namely, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, the South of Scotland Electricity Board, the Northern Ireland Electricity Service and the Central Electricity Generating Board, and area boards will require a total of 9,350 tonnes, and in 1978 the requirement will drop to a mere 4,680 tonnes. It is expected that in 1979 there will be 6,540 tonnes capacity and in 1980–81 10,300 tones capacity. If this is shown as a percentage of the manufacturing capacity available, it comes


out as being 31 per cent. in 1977, 16 per cent. in 1978, 22 per cent. in 1979 and 34 per cent. in 1980–81.
The dramatic fall in demand between 1966 and 1976 has forced companies to adjust their activities. Some, as I have indicated, ceased to trade altogether. Others have spread into other markets at home. Others have sought overseas work so as fully to exploit their technical expertise in transmission tower fabrication.
I emphasise the technical expertise aspect of this. Of all the companies I have referred to only Painter Brothers is involved in the export market to any degree and great credit is due to that firm as it has in the first nine months of 1976 increased its exports to 54 per cent. and gained the Queen's Award to Industry for its export performance.
The Minister can imagine the consternation felt in the transmission tower sector of the construction industry when it heard that a proposal had been put forward to create a company with a plant, possibly to be located in the North of Scotland, and with the objective of undertaking work for all the electricity boards in the United Kingdom. I understand that the investors or partners in this venture, if it were to be floated, would include private individuals. I have had identified to me a management consultant, an existing Scottish engineering company, and the Scottish Development Agency.
If this proposal were just one in which individual and commercial interests had come together to form a consortium and only the private sector was to be involved, I should not be here tonight, but it is the possible inclusion of taxpayers' money by means of the Scottish Development Agency which I think makes it matter of very considerable interest to the House.
If such a company were to come into existence, the effect on the existing companies already supplying the market could be substantial. I assume that it would have comparatively small beginnings, but it would have as one of its priorities the establishment of a firm home base. The effect on exports would not be very great by its own contribution, but it would have the effect of making it much more difficult for those companies already exporting. In saying

this I have Painter Brothers in mind, as it would narrow the home base of these home companies. I mention Painter Brothers in this context because it is the only one to have developed significantly its export business.
As the Minister will appreciate, it is vital to have a proper base load in the home market to be able to compete effectively in the very keen overseas markets, and for the company to bid for contracts abroad it must be secure in the knowledge that should it obtain those contracts it can fill them profitably. Uncertainty in home markets must undermine that ability.
If as a result of the intrusion of a new company into the market, with Government backing, there is an adverse effect on the output of a company such as Painter Brothers, there must be a consequent reduction of the labour force employed. As Painter Brothers is located in Hereford, and as two-thirds of the existing capacity is located in Hereford, I find myself having a very strong interest, because in that event taxpayers' money would have been employed not only to create jobs in Scotland but to create unemployment in Hereford.
I should like at this moment to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that in Hereford, amongst the three companies involved in transmission tower fabrication and galvanising, there are substantially more than 600 people employed. What concerns me as well is that, because of the capital intensive nature of the industry, there would in all probability be fewer jobs created than those destroyed.
As I understand the position at this time, the proposal first saw the light of day earlier this year, and the Scottish Development Agency is now actively pressing the participants in this proposed venture to get something under way and to try to settle the matter.
In a letter to Balfour Beaty Ltd., the parent company of Painter Brothers, the Scottish Economic Planning Department says that individual cases cannot be discussed. The Secretary of State for Scotland, in a Written Answer to me, gave a similar reply. However, I understand that the letter from the Scottish Economic Planning Department sets out the criteria for assistance to industry. It says:
The purpose of the assistance is the provision of jobs in the Development or Special


Development Areas. This purpose will not be served if the project for which assistance is provided does not survive. It is therefore an objective of the extremely thorough examination of each application to assess the likelihood of the project being viable. Viability must depend on, amongst other things, the existence of an adequate market. The Department must therefore satisfy itself as far as possible that this condition is met and to do this it must enquire about the size of the market, expected trends and the number and capacity of other suppliers.
It is for that reason that I am here tonight.
I trust that I have shown that in relation to the capacity already available to supply the anticipated market demand there is not adequate scope for a new company financed with public money not to have a deleterious effect on those already operating in the market. The figures show that the expected trends are not encouraging, bearing in mind the expected load of more than 34 per cent. capacity in 1981 and that there is today more than three times as much productive capacity available from the existing eight suppliers, two of which are located in Scotland and hold 13 per cent. of existing capacity. The project either will not survive or will inject an unacceptable imbalance into the present market structure.
As the Minister has responsibility for the construction industry, I ask him to make the strongest possible recommendations to his colleagues in the Department of Industry and to the Secretary of State for Scotland to prevent a nonsense. It would be folly in the extreme to use public money to help finance this project.
The motto of the Scottish Economic Planning Department is "in defens". If assistance provided by the use of taxpayers' money to create jobs in Scotland led to the loss of jobs in Hereford, I am sure that the Minister would agree that the motto should be revised to "indefensible", as that tag would adequately describe its actions.

2.3 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Armstrong) has made a strong case for his constituency and he has given us the opportunity to consider the problems of a part of the construction industry. I have carefully listened to his argument.
The construction industry generally is going through a very difficult period. There has been a serious decline in work coming forward with subsequent high levels of unemployment throughout the industry. Both sides of the industry have properly expressed their concern not only about the human tragedy involved in laying men off but the anxiety that if the industry continues to decline, when the upturn in the economy comes, the capacity will not be there to meet the demands made upon it. We are paying particular attention to this aspect of the present difficulties.
In the present serious economic situation I can hold out no hope of increasing public expenditure on construction work. Only in July last we found it necessary to reduce public expenditure proposed for 1977–78 by £1,000 million, and of that sum nearly £300 million will fall on construction work. Nevertheless, the public sector programme is still substantial. Our continuing aim is to get value for money and to ensure that we make the very best use of the resources available. We are working closely with the industry to achieve these aims.
In an effort to regenerate manufacturing industry the construction side has an important rôle, and this, of course, has been recognised in the special industry schemes for which financial assistance has been made available under the Industry Act. Up to the end of September this year, projects approved under these schemes included over £30 million worth of construction expenditure, and this attracted grants of just under £10 million. The accelerated projects scheme also stimulated a considerable amount of new industrial building. I am pleased to note that there has been some evidence of a recent upturn in new orders for industrial building.
Constructional steelwork, like other steel manufacturing sectors, is a selected sector in the industrial strategy. In its first report in July the constructional steelwork sector group identified the problems facing the industry and made some suggestions for action. These include measures to ensure that steel supplies are available to meet future demand, consideration of changes in contractual procedures to improve cash flow in the


industry, and efforts to increase the contribution which new industrial building makes to regeneration of manufacturing industry. All of these suggestions are being examined. The sector group has also identified areas for future study.
The immediate problem facing the constructional steelwork industry is the severe cutback in the United Kingdom orders from both the public and private sectors. This has created shortening order books, spare capacity, uneconomic margins, redundancies and some closures. The challenge to the industry currently lies in winning a larger share of a smaller United Kingdom construction market and in increasing the tonnage of structural steel exported.
The sector group is now turning its attention to ways of increasing exports. It will also look at some longer-term issues. These include an examination of the structure and investment needs of the industry, an investigation of the supply of designers and craftsmen and the need and scope for technological development.
We are concerned tonight with that part of the constructional steelwork industry which fabricates transmission line towers. Its output is relatively small compared with the total output of the constructional steelwork industry. The hon. Gentleman reminded the House that production of these towers reached a peak of some 70,000 tonnes per year in the 1960s. But demand fell off during the 1970s and at present amounts to about 8,000–10,000 tonnes per year. As a result of this reduction in demand, some of the firms which previously fabricated towers have now moved over to other structural fabrication work, and some, in common with constructional steelwork fabricators generally, are trying to expand their sales in overseas markets.
The hon. Member referred to the possible financing of a plant for fabrication of transmission line towers in Scotland and the possibility of Government assistance. Section 7 of the Industry Act 1972 enables selective financial assistance to be provided where this is likely to provide, maintain or safeguard employment in

development and in intermediate areas. The hon. Gentleman fairly read to the House the conditions that apply.
The decision on applications for assistance under Section 7 of the Act in Scotland is a matter for my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. He has already told the hon. Member that applicants for assistance are assured that details of their proposals will be treated in strict confidence. For this reason 1 am not able to discuss in detail the particular case to which he has referred.
On the general question of assistance under this section help may be given in order to promote development or modernisation of an industry. It can also be given to promote efficiency and to expand or sustain productive capacity in an industry or in particular undertakings within an industry. The Government published their criteria for dealing with such applications for assistance, and laid them before the House in January this year.
It is a basic requirement that any project which is assisted must be viable as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged. An appraisal is therefore made in each case of the market for the company's products at home and overseas. This includes the company's ability to sell in these markets at competitive prices. Other Departments concerned are also consulted. Moreover, before any offer of assistance is made, advice is obtained from the Industrial Development Advisory Board, which is drawn from those with experience in industry, trade unions and banking.
Though, as I have explained, I cannot comment on the particular case raised by the hon. Gentleman, I can assure him that any proposals for assistance for projects in the constructional steelwork sector would be carefully considered in the light of the criteria that I have described. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend all the points which he has made tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Two o'clock.